EPA-450/2-80-083a
Summary of Comments and Responses
on the May 22, 1980 Proposed Regulations
for Visibility Protection for
Federal Class I Areas
by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Rd.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-3512
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
October 1980
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical data of
interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available - in limited quantities - from
the Library Services Office (MD-35) , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Infor-
mation Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/2-80~083a
11
-------
CONTENTS
Tables
1.
Introduction
2. Identification of Major Issues
2.1 Definition of visibility impairment
2.2 Definition of stationary source
2.3 Responsibilities of FLM
2.4 Integral vistas
2.5 Long-term strategies
2.6 Best available retrofit technology
2.7 Prescribed burning
2.8 Phased approach
2.9' Technical guidance
2.10 New source review
2.11 Costs versus::.benefits
2.12 Identification under Section 169A(a)(2)
of mandatory Class I Federal areas in
which visibility is an important value
2.13 Miscellaneous
3. Summary of Comments by Issue
4. Response to Major Comments
4.1 Definition of visibility impairment
4.2 Existing stationary facility
4.3 Responsibilities of the FLM
4.4 Integral vistas
4.5 Long term strategies
4.6 Best available retrofit technology
4.7 Prescribed burning
4.8 Phased approach
4.9 Technical guidance
4.10 New source review
4.11 Costs versus benefits
4.12 Identification under Section 169A(a)(2)
of mandatory Class I Federal areas in
which visibility is an important value
4.13 Miscellaneous
Appendix A
Summary of individual comments
IV
1
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
12
13
13
14
146
146
149
158
163
171
173
175
177
178
199
204
220
222
A-l
-------
TABLES
Number
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Summary of Comments - Definition of
Visibility Impairment
Summary of Comments - Definition of
Stationary Source .
Summary of Comments - Responsibilities
of FLM
Summary of Comments - Integral Vistas
Summary of Comments - Long-Term Strategies
Summary of Comments - BART
Summary of Comments - Prescribed Burning
Summary of Comments - Phased Approach
Summary of Comments - Technical Guidance
Summary of Comments - New Source Review
Summary of Comments - Costs vs. Benefit
Summary of Comments - Identification under
Section 169A(a)(2)
Summary of Comments - Miscellaneous
Page
15
25
29
44
68
71
84
101
108
119
133
141
142
IV
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rule-
making to protect visibility for Federal Class I areas on
May 22, 1980 at p. 34762 of the Federal Register. This proposed
rulemaking was required by Section 169A of the Clean Air Act
(the Act) with the goal of "...the prevention of any future, and
the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from
manmade air pollution."
These regulations (1) require States to consider visibility
protection for mandatory Class I Federal areas including inte-
gral vistas, (2) require certain existing stationary facilities
to be analyzed for and in some cases to install the Best Avail-
able Retrofit Technology (BART) for controlling those pollutants
which cause visibility impairment., (3) require States to iden-
tify, evaluate, and adopt long-term strategies for making rea-
sonable progress toward remedying existing and preventing future
impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal areas, and (4) re-
quire the adoption of certain measures that will supplement the
States new source review program regarding visibility impact.
There were a total of 383 comments received from the
public. There were also fourteen comments submitted through
Congressional channels; these are IV-C-3 through IV-C-16 and may
be found in the Docket. The comments received by way of members
of Congress are summarized in Appendix A.
As part of this report, the comments have been summarized
and major issues by the commenters have been identified. A
summary of responses to the comments has also been included in
-------
this report. The commenters fell into five major groups: pri-
vate citizens, citizen and environmental groups; agricultural
and forestry organizations; private industry and industrial as-
sociations; and government agencies or representatives-—Federal,
State, and local.
There were 138 comments from private citizens. The vast
majority of these comments were highly supportive of the pro-
posed regulations, but only a few commented on the specific
details in the proposed regulations. Many of the citizens
expressed support for the concept of integral vistas. Some of
the citizens commented on the lack of an adequate monitoring
program, and urged further development in this area. There were
eight citizens which recommended that the role of the Federal
Land Manager be strengthened in the regulations. Some citizens
opposed the regulation of prescribed burning.
There were twenty-two comments from citizen and environmen-
tal organizations. Most of these commenters were supportive of
the proposed regulations, and many had substantive comments con-
cerning particular aspects of the proposed regulations. The
comments ranged from the need for increased monitoring efforts
to giving the Federal Land Manager the principal role in the
identification of integral vistas. The comments by this group
were very similar to those submitted by many private citizens.
A total of thirty-one comments were received from foresters
and agricultural or forestry organizations. Virtually all of
these commenters were concerned with the regulation of prescrib-
ed burning, and they were all opposed to any further require-
ments to control burning beyond that which might be now imposed
by a State agency.
There were 134 comments from private companies or organi-
zations representing private companies. Of these, forty-four
were public utilities. Most, but not all of the commenters op-
posed the proposed regulations in general. The comments from
this group were very diverse and very detailed and they covered
virtually every aspect of the regulations from the definition of
visibility impairment to-the concept of integral vistas.
2
-------
Comments from State, Federal, and local governments or
their agencies totaled fifty-four. The majority of the comments
from local governments were concerning the impact of the regula-
tions on the local economy, and the commenters felt the effect
would be negative. The comments from State and Federal govern-
ment dealt with their respective roles in the proposed regula-
tions. They also provided a variety of substantive technical
comments. Almost all government commenters, other than some
State and local agencies, strongly supported these proposed re-
gulations.
The involvement of the FLM in the visibility regulations
and the concept of "integral vistas" were by far the two most
frequent issues raised in comments. There was also a consider-
able amount of concern over the BART requirements and the need
for more guidance and data to implement the visibility program.
-------
SECTION 2
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR ISSUES
Major issues were identified as a result of the comments
received on the May 22, 1980, Proposed Regulations on Visibility
Protection for Federal Class I areas. These issues covered a
variety of topics and touched on many aspects of the proposed
regulations and supporting material or guidelines. The follow-
ing subsections briefly summarize the major issues in order to
have a clear understanding of the basic concerns raised by the
commenters. The actual summaries of the comments by major issue
and subissue are presented in a series of tables in Section 3.
This section is intended as a key to explain the headings on the
tables in Section 3.
2.1 DEFINITIONS OF "VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT"
Most of the comments on definitions dealt with "visibility
impairment" and related terms. The majority of these comments
were negative with respect to certain terms used in the defini-
tion. The most frequently raised issues are listed in Section
3.
2.1.1 "Human Perception"
Many comments were concerned with the meaning or applica-
tion of the term "human perception" of visibility impairment.
This term appears in the definition of "visibility impairment,"
and restricts the perceptibility to the observation by humans.
Many of the comments related to the subjectivity of this term.
2.1.2 Any vs. Significant
Several of the comments received stated that, rather than
the term "any" in the definition of "visibility impairment," a
-------
substitution of "significant" should be made. There were sev-
eral different types of comments related to this which are
grouped in the summary.
2.1.3 Definition of "Adverse Impact"
The definition of "adverse impact" is closely related to
that of "significant impairment," as was noted by several com-
menters. "Adverse impact" also has a particular application in
the regulations in § 51.307, which made it the subject of com-
ments .
2.1.4 "Natural Conditions"
There were a significant number of comments on the defini-
tion of natural conditions. These comments were summarized, and
in some cases the commenters offered an alternate definition.
2.2 DEFINITION OF "STATIONARY SOURCE"
The definition of "stationary source" is related to the
Alabama Power decision; this and other relevant points were
raised by the commenters.
2.2.1 'Regulated vs. Any Pollutant
Several comments were received concerning the terms "any
air pollutant" in the definition of stationary source. There
were also comments as to what "regulated" should refer to in
this rulemaking.
2.2.2 "Reconstruction"
Although "reconstruction" is a separate definition, it is
closely related to that of stationary source, and refers to a
stationary source.
2.2.3 "Potential to Emit"
The definition of "potential to emit" also refers to "sta-
tionary source." Comments concerning this definition were made
several times relative to the Alabama Power decision.
-------
2.3 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS
Various aspects of the role of the Federal Land Manager in
the proposed regulations prompted a variety of comments. The
Federal Land Manager was identified as a participant in
§ 51.302, § 51.303, § 51.304, § 51.305, § 51,306, and § 51.307
of the proposed regulations.
2.3.1 Affirmative Responsibilities
The way in which the role of the Federal Land Manager was
perceived in the proposed regulations, and that role as it
appears in Sections 165 and 169A of the Act was the subject of
numerous comments. These comments varied from supportive of the
Federal Land Manager's role in the proposed regulations to
highly critical of that role.
2.3.2 Approval/Disapproval
Several commenters expressed concern over the amount of
decisionmaking authority given to the Federal Land Manager in
the proposed regulations.
2.3.3 PSD
The role of the Federal Land Manager in § 51.307 was the
subject of some debate. The implementation of that role was
also commented upon.
2.3.4 Invo1vement/Noninvo1vement
The involvement or noninvolvement of the FLM in the various
aspects of the visibility regulations were commented.upon. In
addition, the degree of involvement, e.g., SIP revisions,
§ 51.302, was commented upon by individuals and representatives
of citizen's groups, government, and industry.
2.4 INTEGRAL VISTAS
Section 51.304 and § 51.307 of the proposed regulations
deal with or have portions dealing with integral vistas. Numer-
ous comments were made concerning this concept.
-------
2.4.1 Not Authorized
One area of concern for many commenters was that the con-
cept of integral vistas was not authorized in the Clean Air Act
either explicitly or implicitly.
2.4.2 Better Procedures
Many commenters felt there were better procedures available
for the identification of integral vistas or that better proce-
dures could be developed. Comments were made on the procedures
as they appeared in the guideline, "Criteria for the Identifi-
cation of Integral Vistas" (draft).
2.4.3 Secretary of the Interior vs. State . . .-
The Federal Land Manager (defined in the regulations as the
Secretary) was given a substantial role in the proposed regula-
tions to identify and protect integral vistas for Federal Class
I areas. There were comments both pro and con on the level of
involvement in identifying and protecting integral vistas by the
Federal Land Manager.
2.4.4 Burden on Planning New Sources
Some commenters stated the various aspects of integral
vistas, as proposed in the regulations, would place an 'undue
burden on the planning and siting of new sources. A summary of
these comments is included in Section 3.
2.5 LONG-TERM STRATEGIES
Section 51.306 calls for the State to include a long-term
strategy in their State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for
visibility and to explain how they will progress towards the
national goal set by Congress. Comments were received concern-
ing the requirements outlined in this section of the proposed
regulation.
2.5.1 Existing
A variety of comments were received on the inclusion of
existing sources long-term strategy. The SIP revision must
7
-------
address certain areas of the long-term strategy as they relate
to other than BART sources causing visibility impairment. Com-
ments were summarized dealing with this aspect as identified in
§ 51.302 and § 5i:306.
2.5.2 New Source
The proposed regulations require the SIP revision to in-
clude a plan for the long-term strategy of dealing with new
sources which may impair visibility or impact integral vistas.
2.5.3 Periodic Review
The long-term strategy section requires that the plan shall
provide for a periodic review and for revision as appropriate at
least every three years. Comments were made concerning what
this review should include and concerning the frequency of the
review in the proposed regulations.
2.6 BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY
The requirement to apply Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) to existing sources is in § 51.302. Numerous comments
were received on various aspects of BART as presented in the
proposed regulations.
2.6.1 Timing
There were comments concerning the time period available
for the Federal Land Manager to identify candidate sources for
BART analysis. There were also comments on the time available
for an SIP revision.
2.6.2 Impact on All Sources
Most of the comments on BART analysis were from industry or
industrial organizations. There was concern about the impact,
on sources which may be identified for the purpose of applying
BART.
8
-------
2.6.3 Reanalysis
The Section 51.306(e) requirement in the long-term strategy
to perform a reanalysis of BART for a pollutant not previously
controlled generated numerous comments.
2.6.4 Cost
The cost of BART as applied to various industries was
commented upon. These comments were from industry, citizens,
and citizen's groups.
2.6.5 FLM Involvement
The involvement of the Federal Land Manager in the BART
process was commented upon by government agencies, States,
citizens, and industry.
2.6.6 State Responsibility
State responsibility in the BART process was addressed by
several commenters.
2.7 PRESCRIBED BURNING
The requirement for the long-term strategy developed by a
State to include smoke management techniques for prescribed
burning is in § 51.306(f)(5). A very large number of comments
were received on this issue.
2.7.1 Not a Major Source
Many commenters stated that prescribed burning is not a
major source.
2.7.2 Preferable to Wildfire
Most commenters stated that prescribed burning is prefera-
ble to wildfire.
2.7.3 Forest Management
The point was frequently made in the comments that pre-
scribed burning is part of good forest management practices.
-------
2.7.4 Preferable to Chemical and Mechanical Methods
The point was made by several commenters that the use of
prescribed burning is preferable to either chemical or mechani-
cal methods of land clearing and preparation. They felt it was
better to use prescribed burning from both ecological and
energy standpoints.
2.7.5 Beyond the Intent of Congress
Several comments were made that the regulation of pre-
scribed burning was beyond the intent of Congress in Section
169A of the Act.
2.7.6 Fire-Natural
The point was made that fire is natural to all areas where
prescribed burning is practiced and that part of the smoke pro-
duced should be considered natural background.
2.8 PHASED APPROACH
As stated in the preamble, the Agency has taken a phased
approach to visibility protection. These regulations limit the
scope of the program to Phase I or to obvious forms of impair-
ment. This approach was favored by most commenters.
2.8.1 Does Not Provide Adectuate Time for SIP Development or
BART
The inclusion of specific time requirements for SIP devel-
opment and for BART was questioned by some commenters while
others felt that the time allowed and the substance in the pro-
posed regulation were adequate.
2.8.2 Specific Date for Phase II
Some comments suggested that a specific.date for Phase II
regulations should be promulgated.
10
-------
2.9 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
The Agency has issued technical guideline documents in con-
nection with the proposed regulations, and received a number of
comments on these guidelines. The guidelines discuss modeling,
monitoring, and BART.
2.9.1 Modeling
Comments were made concerning the currently available
models for visibility and the EPA guideline. Many of these
comments dealt specifically with the limitations of these
models.
2.9.2 Monitoring
Comments were made concerning the currently available
visibility monitoring techniques and the EPA guideline.
2.9.3 Lack of Technical Tools
Several commenters felt the present tools available to
assess or predict visibility impairment are not adequate.
2.10 NEW SOURCE REVIEW
Section 51.307 of the proposed regulations deal with new
source review and requirements for visibility protection.
2.10.1 Lack of Coordination
There is a requirement for a State plan in which provisions
must be made for coordination with the Federal Land Managers on
certain aspects of the ne.w source permit application. Some com-
menters felt that the procedures for the coordination between
the FLMs and the States were not clearly defined leaving some
uncertainty on the order and type of actions each should or may
take in the new source review process.
2.10.2 Inconsistancies in Definitions
Some commenters felt there were inconsistancies in defini-
tions for "adverse impact" and for other terms as they are.
applied to the PSD program.
11
-------
2.10.3 Tools to Implement Provisions Dealing with Impact on
Visibility
There were comments concerning the availability and useful-
ness of guidance documents to predict and evaluate the impact on
visibility by proposed new sources.
2.10.4 Inhibits Growth
Some concern was expressed that, if the proposed regula-
tions were implemented for new source review, they would inhibit
growth and development. The regulations, as proposed, would
complicate new source siting, and therefore inhibit new growth
and development.
2.10.5 Fugitive Emissions
There were several comments concerning the inclusion of
fugitive emissions in the proposed regulations. Some commenters
felt fugitive emissions should not be addressed in this rule-
making.
2.11 COSTS VERSUS BENEFITS
There were several comments on various interpretations of
costs versus benefits of the visibility regulations. These
comments dealt primarily with benefits to be derived from the
protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas in
terms of the overall costs.
2.11.1 Assessing Improvement
Comments were received relating to the ability to assess
improvement in visibility impairment and to what that assessment
would mean.
2.11.2 Reasonable Attribution
There were comments dealing with what the "reasonable
attribution" to visibility may mean in terms of economic impact.
12
-------
The commenters' concern was primarily with the number of facili-
ties which may have to install BART. There were comments con-
cerning what benefits could be achieved at given or stated costs
for these sources.
2.11.3 IGF Analysis
The "Preliminary Assessment of Economic Impact of Visi-
bility Regulations" (draft Report by ICF, Inc.), was the sub-
ject of several comments. Many aspects of this report were
challenged, and critical comments were provided.
2.12 IDENTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 169A(a)(2) OF MANDATORY CLASS
I FEDERAL AREAS IN WHICH VISIBILITY IS AN IMPORTANT VALUE
A few commenters expressed concern over the November 30,
1979, identification of mandatory Class I Federal area in which
visibility is an important value under Section 169A(a)(2).
2.13 MISCELLANEOUS
There were other topics commented on frequently which did
not fit into the other categories.
2.13.1 NSO's and Visibility
Section 119 of the Act provides for administrative orders
that would postpone final compliance for certain nonferrous
smelters with SO2 emission limits. Several commenters made
statements on the inclusion or exclusion of visibility require-
ments for nonferrous smelters in these orders.
2.13.2 Reversibility of Visibility Impairment
There were comments on the fact that visibility impairment
is a reversible phenomenon, as opposed to other types of air
pollution effects.
2.13.3 Impact on Future Class I Areas
The possibility of the impact of visibility impairment or
the regulation thereof on Class I areas identified in the future
was presented by several commenters.
13
-------
SECTION 3
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY ISSUE
The following tables contain the comments summarized for
major "issues. The left vertical column of the table lists the
commenter and the identifying number for the comment. Across
the top of the table is the subissue identified in the comments.
A brief statement was made in the appropriate column if the com-
ment appeared to differ with or elaborate on the title of the
subissue. However, if the comment was brief and essentially the
same as the identified subissue only an "x" is provided.
Not all comments appear in these summary tables, since the
tables deal only with major issues and subissues. A summary of
all comments by commenters is in Appendix A.
14
-------
CJ
J=
_J
i/:
-^j
2: o
' E CU
O in
i-4-5 5 u
;.. — > 1-3
C
+J
03
0
cu
Q.
Q.
03
O
•r~
Q-
CU
S-
03
CO
E
Q
•£>
03
r—
cn
cu
d "O O_
4->
3
CT
o
£^
O)
o
in
o
i
cu
JO
cu
JO
CO
03
CU
q-
4-5
O
E
0
4-J -O "o
•r- E 0
i — 03 CO
03 •!-
3 "~O
CT CU
cn o
•r- 03 S-
03 S- CU
i— r— Q.
o3 03 co
3 3 O
co co E
> > 03
cn E
CU E O
OT- O
f-» -|-r^
CO co =
S-T- i—
CO X 03
q_ CO S-
q- = 3
•5 E 03
CU E
CU O> =
CO S
3 4-> -a
03 a> E
O JO 03
>
^3
cr
d)
o ••-
E r—
CU JO
S- T—
03 CO
•r™
E >
0
4-5 E
03 CU
S- i—
4—5
o
E •
E T3
03 CO
O S-
3
co co
E 03
O CU
±3
•t- CO
CO
5
co
03
03
Q.
•
CU
o
cu
•"-3
JO
3
co
O
O
1—
CO
•1—
E
0
E
•r-
q-
cu
-a
0
•
cu
4-5
a>
cu
•^o
T3
•a
4-> -a
E i —
CU 3 CU
in o 4->
a> j^ "i-
S- in E
a. T-
co q-
>> E CU
r— o -a
4-> E
accura
Defini
contai
1
•r—
t/) "I~*
•i- O-
> 0)
o
T3 E
E O CU
3 O JO
O
s- >-,-a
*3 J!^ •!- 3
E
03
O
in q- 4-5
03 -P- E
O
to
0 t— 0
03 T- J^
O3 JO CO
CO
•a
standa
^
cu
Q.
o
cu
>
CO
-o
CO
-o s-
E O E
03 £ 03
-a o jc: s«
•i- E 4-> O
£_ T- r-l
03 CU S
E CO O
•r- S CU
OO i— >>
"cu ~a E E
E -i- •!-
•i- S- CM 03
r— O3 P"^ 4-5
CU 1 5-
CO •!- E CO
03 E 03 O
CQ CU -E E
= CO 4J 3
\\
-.'j
ii
1
j'
:
>;
';
j
1
ti
ii
•
•i
j
1
. cu
O
O
O
>-
I
CO
00
OJ
i
ii
i.
j
j|
j;
|;
i-
11
J!
•;
I;
ii
•'
ii
l!
|i
•\
•,;
[;
I
;:
ii
i!
Jl
C
. 03
CO O
<. 5
U)
E
O
•i —
f^i t~)
— CO
IE S_
cu
Q_
a. o
cu c_>
U ^-x
c: o
0 S-
c_> a_
• •
s_
cu
4->
E
CU
c
o
!S 1 *
1 CU E CU
•r- E 03 cn
q- E E
T3 CO J= • = 03
i— T3 4-> cn co J=
3 03 -i- E CU O) O
o cn 3 «i— 3 jo
4-5 T— E O T— "O "O
= Cn O 4-> E r— 0)
>,-O E -r- -I— J^ 3 CO
E03(O4->EOO3
=£ CUJ^T- O COJ= 03
= i— O E E 4-> CO O
^
t
O
,~
^"^ rT\
O CO
O I
O3 CO
X 1
CO >•
1— 1-1
1
•I- 1 1
4-5 E CO T-
E 03 T- 03
03 3 > O-
O CT= E
E 03 "" 4-> ~ •
cn a> -a -r- 4->
•r- S- CU r— E
CO r— T- -t— CU
0
o
cu
o
CL.
s_
CO
•r- tD
C£ CM
4-5 C3
f— • 1
03 >
CO i— t
S-
0
o .« cf
O) CU O +J 4-> O)
O E •!- 03 E JO •
E CO 4-> > CU "O
CU cn O i- E T3 CO
i_ 03 CO CU >»i— 4->
CO E 4-5 CO O 3 CU
q- 03 o cu T-3 o i—
CU E S- S- E J= CO
fv^ — Q- Q- CO CO "O
03
E 1 -S- -
oq- -a co o
"O •!- CO -r- 4-5
E > 4-5 03
03 >5-r- 03 O CO
S- i— CO 4-> -i- Cn
E O CO "O 03
q- o i- E s-
O CO E •!— CU
1 Q.T- >
co q- o3 •
CO CO CO CU O -— *
3 s- i— cn -co
03 3 Q- E co cn cn
O 4-> O 03 O • E
CO 03 CU JE -i- CO 03
03 E Q- O 4-5 S-
O
>>
O 03
•i- O.
<— E
JO 0
3 O
CU CO
03 o cn
E T- CM
O > 1
N S- Q
••- CO 1
s- to :>
—i
1 I—
1 CU 03
= cn 3
4-5 E 03 CO
E 03 S- T-
03 J= CU >
O 4-5 >
•i- 03 CU
q- co c
•i- co q- •!-
E O> O r— CU
cni — co cn
•r- &S CO E
OO O O 03 03
= E T— 1 JO S-
o
JC
• o
> s-
•t- 03
E CO
^3 CO
CU
" cc cu
C~ 4-5
O J^ 3 CM
03 03 4-> CO
JO 4-» -i- CM
CU CO Q
co q- E i
S- O i— ' >"
—* *""
j
N
1
1
-a
cu
3
E
•i—
E
O
0
*
-------
,jnj
C
s
£-
(9
O.
to S
h- (-4
UJ >
3EL *p
^"' lf~
o i—
O -i-
U. •<-
O w>
•r—
C£
< v-
sz o
3 c
to o
•r-
•P
* *r~
rH c
CO «jl
a s
(0
i E -o a
Ii-r- (0 E
m- T-
CU **"••
I'd O
'"
*
.]->
1 , *jj
in u
i >J
1 "*.?
4>.
S*
'*
-
!
i |
' jrt "^
E S"
1* .2 o
»; -1- *-
!> a-
^
i,.
i
I +* c
Q. 0
1 CU O
It E 0
H 0 £-
Ji t_J Q_
f,
i;
«i
it
'! 1
0
! cj
s-
r— CU •
J % -Q p_ C~ "O
<0 0- E (0 -P CU -PC-
_E (13 H— » O CU CU .
• •P 0 C. E't-.Q "-P
s- -r- c cu o o *- T"
its S— CU S— "r— "O CO >-
Q)O3S--P co
Q- 0
,
o
tn E •*->•<
CD O "*
o'-p s- o
Uu CO O -I—
> r-- u_ -p io
S- CU 0 ^-1 E 0) t-»
CU to O 1 O -P 1
•p E in a CD p a
to o en i cu s- i
cuo $- Q- >
3: •— ' o •— *
•P >)
CO S-
•P 0
Q.-O
S- E
CU CO
•P E
E
•r- CU
t/)
- -a
•P 3
CO O
••P-E
co en
.
CU
3
o>
CO
I to •
E •*- E
E • -P CU
3 E E -P
S- E O CO
4J.r-.r- O CU
00 -P -r- 3
E E -r- t- O1
•r- 0 E T- «
-a co -r-
D_
s_ . o~>
S- E E
CU4J -rr
•1 — ^ C=
co o
>> >>
E O
CO O "
^: oi S- co S- co
O) CU 00 O (O
•i— J3 Q- 1 S- 1
E 3 co a cu o
C r— -E 1 > 1
3 0 O > O >
O I-H CJ3 i— i
"
1
f~t
3
en
• -
1 CU
?*
00 -i—
E 4->
S- O
CU CU "
1— -r-5
1
O1-P ' =
'lo E H-> Si -P E
E S- en •!—
m •> co CU O E
ja -P O > E co
"O CO • ^~ CO CO E
r— O -r- =
3-i— • • E CU CU
o M- >, era > E
_E "r- E T— E CO CO
COECO ,'coco^ien
CU 1-
.E O
en
-O -P
E E
O CU
>-> E •
CU 0) -P
J3 5- 0
•r-eC
00 3
a> o- cu
O CU .E
o s- -p
0 0 0
o3
S- E M-
CU CO O
•a 3 a.
cu o E •
CU Q- O -P CU
CO r— CO C3O Q.OCM
«r- 1^^ O <^* CU *- *3"
E O «— 1 -I—-PCSI QCUCM
O E 1 1- J= 1 El
Ol 3 O •!— O1Q • E Q
CU O 1 O •!— 1 CO O 1
S_0> CO_I> •0>
O <-l OL. 1— ' ^3 1— <
(continued)
16
-------
UJ
o
o
o
cs:
,
."if
•r-
If)
L —
•O
c:
o
.t!
*~~
,
i>
o
;; J
. .g
;• i
L. I
!' &
!' «
rc •!—
• » * i ^
rO C
!• 2: o
;i U
Ii
1:
!i E O)
j O 'in
• •!— £~ -P
i-P CD O
!;E -o a.
.•r- ra E
i(l+_ .)—
1 O 4-
'!
j!
1 • c
m o
> "-
jl «r^
1 ' '"*
j
1
C
o
='£
g 0.
g O)
i — r- O
i *-
i: CO
i; Q-
i;
l! , t
i 4_> C
Q. 0
QJ £_>
U ^
c o
0 5-
O Q-
j
i
\
|i
I;
S-
! 1
• c
it CJ
J_J *">^
o i-—5
5 '
E'OS
tC O . .
O -r- • S-
q- CO -
E-r- • jj E
O -P "O -P O
r- E CD CO T-
+J CO -P ^3 -P
i— •<— S- •>"
COO «/J =
r- CO Q. 35 ;r~
4- CL CO <4-
QJ O) 3 OJ CO
C3 _Q CO , ^ "O
"" ~ "~" " r~' \ ~™ : '
to •
•i- CO
X to E
CO E S-
0 CO
-0 •!- -P
E -P
ra •!— CD
-0 E
i— E -i-
(tS O t/1
S- 0 3
'3 <4-
•P CD E
CCS E O
^ ••- 0
•
g § ^_"_ "g i,"g
£ .J- E +J C -r- E E •
CO-PCOEO-P tao-P
4_> .r_ 4J a) -r- (O O -r— O
10-r- CO 0) O S- 4^ E
co't-cocncoco T-COCO
to CO to fO *P to E E -E
OT3 0 E 0 CO CD -P
Q. Q. n3 S- S- -r- -P
Q-E Q. E Q- Q- 00 0 E
O-r-O= = =' =E-<-
. —
CU
-p
to
OJ
to
o
Q.
O.
o
0 0
r-r
3 E
CO CO
1 — tvj
g ;-p
"S o jo
^^ ,0
§55 E OCO
0 -r- CM -r- CO t/> CM
• P- 4_> | J^ 1 (O 1
S_ CO Q 0 Q 0-0
CO E 1 "3 > r— >-
^"~l 1— 1 31 1— < QJ 1— 1
E
O
-P 4J /
E-r- . '
co E :
S- -r- ;
co q- co !
<+- CO >
t(- T3 T-
•r- -P i
T3 <4- 0 ;
00),
T3 TD .
CO E -Q !
to O 3 i
O ••- to : ;
O- to • !
OS- 0
S- CO O !
.0- > h-
|
lj
to {
1
en
0-r-
q- E
oj o s- co
en -P -P co
ST-CJ E
cH
fO
o
•p
0
.
!
i
•
'o
CO
Q.
to
CO -t-
o
•r- E
E O •
• .E T— "O
O) < O -P CO
3 co fo -a
: en -p o co
rC T- CO
^» ^C q — E
0 Cu <-> °
to ^
M- co i T"
0 0 0 i-
S_ fO • O
.3 M- O -E
+J O 3 O -P
0.10 E to 0) 3
T- CO
^1- S-tO^-l fCS-LO ES-LO
ri 3S-oo o s- <— i O-PCM
coo to-po 'ES-O -g^^
—y. j__,| ^- | | ^_j i— i "~3 i — i
,
"
i
1
continued)
1
ji
17
-------
a>
3 •
0"0
•r- 0>
O-r-
a>
C-P
I
+-> o
E T-
o
E
•r- r— T3
_Q
O 3
-P Q.
S~ .E
OJ -P
O) 3 •
3
O
t/1 •
-o
= OJ
a> 3
C C i—
•i— fO fO
3 ^: >
r- O
(O I
"to >,
i- -p -P
O £= T- •
q- O) r— O
E -r— -—
oo O) JD
•I— S- T—
IS
o
CJ
o
o
CO
— i
O
L
<"(
F|
(
I
*~
:«
j '
;* {£
i^+2
|:a
t.
j!
r—"
rp
3
ra
O)
t.
o
TJ
IB
«»-
O
tr
>
to
o
^?
•^
E
Q
•r- O
r— E
a>
-a oj
0 S-
°
•P
U
D.
E
•P
re
o
•r-
M—
i
•p 4-
E = OJ
0 E 03 =
•r- d) O) 0)
t- E E E t/1
•r- S- to O S-
E t~ Ol •>—
E
**"
Oi
Ol
03
c~
0
-
1
E
•r™
-a
3
O
.E
a>
T3
"o
E
CU (D to I —
^ E!> -^E
3 03 O E -r-
O S- -r-3 O
^: a) E oo)
CO M- Cl) = -Q
•
-
a>
CD
E
03
s-
I
n
M—
E
O) CD
•P y> _•
OJ~ 4->
-O T3 E
3 S- 03
i— O 0
O 3K -r-
.? -g^ ^ill€>l
-- . c^ SB"4*!!*
- t/lO>- OOt/l>>
-a^J -OEOO .r-03020tOO)
t/1
03
O
t/1
•r~
+J
03
j-
.E
t/>
3
CD
E
j_>
O to i-
C'>-P
Ol
E E 0
03 T- O
-a
E
03
adverse
E
O)
0)
S
t/1
•i— •
03
"%
+J
03
O
u—
c^-*
OJ
03
n
OJ
8
03
"OJ •
to -P
S- E
O> O)
j
1
I
t
1
i*
1-.
i
!!
Ie
t
,
,'
i
ij
li
•
•;
a
i
I*
t
!
1;
*'
I
i!
:.
Any vs.
•significant
E
O
= 5
O3 p»i
§ 0>
j O
— *— S—
O)
Q.
•P E
Q. O
O) O
O ^^
C O
0 S-
O Qu
• .
s-
O)
•p
0
t •J
o
E
3 tO
S- Q)
•P 0
• t/1 "O
OJ E
•r- "~ O
-P-P'i- •
O E 4-> OJ
OJ OJ OJ -P
•r-> t/> +^ 03
ja QJ E r—
3 S- OJ OJ
COO- E £-
o
E
03
Q.
0
C-3
i—
•r-0
OIQ
CM
OJ 1
T3
E
OJ
O-
OJ
•o
•p
0
E
-a
r^
3
O
.E
OO
0
O
•I —
-p
o-
OJ
UJ
03
OJ
OJ
rri
T3 CD
3 T-
I — tO
E 0 =
O E =
.,_ .p. -a -p
+J S- E
•r- "O O 03
Er— 3 0
.r- 3 •!-
q- o OJ M-
OJ -E JE •<—
Q 01 -P E
|
a.
OJ
o
S-
OJ
a.
E
03
E
3 •
JZ E
O
E-r-
0 -P
0
r-l eC CO
to O- r^««
CM U- CM
1 ^ t
C3 -^Q
1 >— • 1
> O- >•
i — I e3^ 1 — 1
"Any" was not
envisioned by
Congress.
E
rr*
Union Oil Comp<
of California
IV-D-274
"Significant"
should accoun
for times and
frequency tha
visitors migh
view the seen
o
03
O
O
03
E
0
•r—
•P
03
Association
IV-D-280
No distinguis
-
O
03
E
•i —
2
03
0
•P
3
O
CO
ing between
"significant"
or "adverse"
impairment. '
QJ
O
•r-
S-
OJ >>
CO -P
•r- CM
0 S- CO
•r- O CM
[Q -p o
3 3 1
Q-eC =>
i — i
TD
a>
E
'-P
O
O
18
-------
o <—
O
>-
co
LU
1
ca
-=£..
CJ
: to
• . •— . Q
i- —>
— ' "i—
•P "^
."3 c;
z o
i'
_ ; '.' c CD
c .' o to
a •;— >. -P
C! ;;-.— > ro
' — ; . £^ "O O.
.-3 ••— (B S
Q ;^ If—
Bj i CJ <1—
7 i= °
r— , -P
* r~ \ I £^
f*^ i:, * fC
»r— i- (/} O
t/5 r > *r-
•: — ; ** —
^* ' > • ^1 * *""
i; c c
— -p
ii 2 a.
j! = CU
;l — j O
'' ^ cu
;• DL
': •*-> E
', a. o
i QJ C_>
1 U ~^s
•i CO
O i-
• o o-
p
ii
l\
S-
j: a
ii "c
ii t-
'rO O
to 3 -P C-
•r- O W1 E
1— T- T3 O
E > CU -r-
o to -P
• r- • r— 3 rO
-P CU t— E
ro > •!- CU •!-
> -r- 3 -Q E
S--P S- '
CU O -P E CU
CO CU E O -P
n '1-3 CU -i— ro
3 >>-P CU CU
CO S- rO CO ^Z
> > 3 0 E
E = re
0 >>3 CD
•i— r— CO "O E
-P O -I— E T—
•r- rO > ro S-
E -P O
•i— 34 — E -P •
4- JD O O 'i— CO
CU T- -i- E CU
T3 S- CO -P O 3
•P E ro E 0-
CU -P (O > T-
CD ro CU S- &- C
E = E >J2 -P CU
0 -P J2 O 0 -P
0
O
• "
^CJ {j
3 0
D_ CO
CO
E=t lO
tO 00
O S- CM
•r- CU 1
S- 3 Q
CU 0 1
ED. >
^.
'-P 0
•r—
E -P
•r— E
M- -i-
CU O
-a Q.
o cu
•r" r—
q_ X3 •
•i- ro E
•P -P O
E ro T-
CU i — -P
••- 0 Q.
O CO CU
to-i- 0
o o cu
•Z.-Z. Q.
i— •
•P
ro
!>
^>
^*
>
^
3
.
• •
CU CU
> >
•r~ "r—
-P -P
0 0
cu a>
•r-3 »r-3
_a ^a
3 3
to to
O c_j
O
O i —
O E
•i— • O
•P CD
O CU
cu o:
UJ CO E -i— «— 1
CM S- O CO
ro 1 CU E 1
O.Q -P 3 Q
El CO O 1
ro > a> c_> >
H- I-H 3 •-•
cu
.^ -p
3 0
o- c--
ro "O
CU 0" 3
J2 T3 O
CU -E
(O 'r™ CO •
-P 4- T3
ro -i— = CU
-0 +J -P -0
E to 3
E ro ro r—
(03 S- 0
00" -PC
E •!-
3-0 o
0 E 0 CU
3T ro = -O
= S- v-
•P 0
E CU 4- CU
rO J*i to
0 (0 CU 4- 3
•i- E 0 O
4- E S-
•r- -O rO -P O
Ei— 3 = -P '
CD 3 O 3 «r- rO
•r- O i — O CO CU
CO J= r— E •*- S-
= CO rO ro > rO
»
CU
>
•f^
•p
0
cu
•1-3
_o
3
to
0 0
-a
E
ro i —
ro
to O
rO O
CD O
•r- CM n- CO
O S- t— * tO • <— t '
•r- -P CO E O CO
4- O 1 O O 1
•i— CU Q -i— to Q
O r— 1 -P CO 1
tO HI > fO <£ >*
Q_ i— i "Z. i— I
E -P 1
•i- E CU >>
QJ S-.Q
o E a.
+j cu = -o p
CD CU i
E ro T3 CO
0 E C 3 . !
•r- rO ro rO co
-P £ U CU
•r~ — ** C_) •
•i- CO ~E 3
4- E O= O
CU S-'-r- E tO
-O QJ -P O
•P O-r- CU
cu cu -P -a
CD CU -P ra ro
E -a o > E
(O 3 S- S- E
_E r— Q.CU ro
o o = co E
E
0 ' i
r-t §
l=toS
-P E E
rO O T- -
=E '-p cu
•r- T3>
O E CU
S- O -E
Q O -P
"
oo
a.
i
3
Q-
O LO
•i— i—l
3 s- co
co •
CQ 1 — I
(continued)
19
-------
cu
g
•p-
fO
i
CO
o
*r"
•P
C
CU
a
S-
•r- i. +3
•P 0) U
•r- > (0
c -a a
•r- rO^E
CU u
'«£
?*>*F"*
<:.0
U)
E
c
<0 «f-
3 a
rn u
a>
Q.
-P E
Q. 0
cu o
E O
0 S-
o a.
* «
f
cu
•p
o
cu
-a
3
"o
E
CU CU
•P O r—
(0 -P 0
3 S-
CT CU
CU CO IO
-a -i —
E CU —1
a. a.
•p
3
O
0. -r-
S- S-
O O)
C_> eC
J= «* f- t£)
O CM O CO
+J CO CO
n3 1 • 1
r- Q -P Q
•PI Q. 1
O > CU >
Q. 1 — 1 C^ I — 1
•
E CU
0-P
•r— fO
•P 3
E CU
«T to
CU E
Q-r-
+-> S- 1
1 E O
•r- CO >> T3
E CJ r-~ "O CU "O CO
•i- •!- CU CU -r- E 3
CU O -i— O fO 4- T- 3
-O EE3-r--PCUO>
E cn a-r— E 3 •!-
-OOT-CUCU'tSn3O>^3
CO
•P
res cu
O 3
•i- Dl
l»- CO
•r- >
o> o
•i- O
CO -P
0
•i — >•> fO
S- E E
•P S- D- >
I — i — l CJ3 i — l
T3
O)
o
o
20
-------
E JQ
it- = 0
O -P £ -P T- "O
C 0;
c: OJ CD S- T- -r- >
I
Ij
E
0)
E
•r-
ro
Q.
CO E
uu >,
O i—
0 'I-
J2
•u. •<-
f*^ (/5
. •!—
CC.
o
t-i 'E
.1 •!-
CO li-
CU
UJ Q
i
CQ
^c^
" h-
-
CU
jc:
o
1/3
C
i— 0
TO '<-
i- -P
3 •<-
•P -a
TO E
2 0
U
E CU
O IO
•r- S- -P
•p a> u
•r- > CO
c~a a.
•<- TO e
H- T-
CU <4-
Q 0
^
E
. TO
in u
<<—
E E
<£. 0)
•r—
U)
E
O
E •!-
(O 4->
E Q
3 Q)
Z U
CU
n.
-P E
Q. 0
CU 0
O "^
E O
0 J-
o a.
S-
cu
E
i
o
o
o e c: t- x -a •/-
•r— S- (O CD E -CD •
+j -i- _E a> o o E
•r-rtS OS-T3O S-O
E Q. O) ' — CU
>^ -i- s- a. :o E cu
CU CU in 3i T- >> CL
-O >, +-> O r— i—
+? i E jc: cu i— cu
-a -r- cn+-> o v> re 01
CUi — En3-r- .r— O -E -O -P S-
CO JO r— CU S S- CU
CU T- JE S- -r- >
O> CO (O -P -P CU > fCS
cn-r- ' n3 T3
3> tOEJEE COE
1 -O r— E CU 1 ' " j_J
^" ^~ ^" "'^ ^" "^ ^ r"~ C 'J ^^ ?^ _ Q| ^ ] ^
ft »r" "r~ (T3 *r" E "^" ^ r— " ^~ « t ^ *]^ J^ ^> CT ^_^ ~ ti r— -^-j — j^ gj •
> Q_ CU C >- 'o tQJ -£^ "^ "H^ ^" ^tj |-^ ^_ ^ | % ^ c^ Q^
>s~O = E * E "^ CD *r" ^~ - "P E C-J ^. rp Q; 4-J • ^^^ __ ^ ^ ^ ^
i—* r- "r~ JE CU ^C *P "P j«- , ty vU QJ w »^ "J w' ^jj ^ ^Q £2_ ^j JE CU •p'JE ~3 -E -P -P E T- C7> ir S- 5- .
t- 1 — t ^> fj h-H
1— «->
^ — s
-a
cu
3
'£
a
j o
21
-------
S-
0)
J=
o
1
I
s-
•f"*
CO
Q.CU
J_ s*"~ *^
^^ ** " .
O -P 3
•r- -I— O •
•P r— -c: "O
«r- T- to CU
C -Q +*
•r- -t- -P CU
«<— t/1 C i —
d) T— CU CU
o > E "^
+J
CU CO
r— 10 O
Ilj-,
•r— T— •
C/> -P J= T-
CO Q- O C
CU T- CD
CU O J= •"-
c s- -5. i/i
•r- CU
q_ Q_-p "O CU
CU C CU to
•o >> cu s- s-
t3 r^ S- -O >
r— CO "r- •»— "O
3 3 CO C/1 fO
JC T— E O S-
00 > -r- O 0
r— O
ro T-
s-
ta
to
u_
LU
i
o
o
u.
o
a±
uo
I
CO
LU
1 ' I—
i
•P C Q>
C O W .
d) L,- J_ +J
e »4J cu o
$_ .^- > ra
.r- C-0 &
(TJ !•!— 03 E
a i>»- T-
E CU M-
M Q 0
•r~ ji
•I— li c
xs ! -re
._ 1, (/) O
U! |l > 'r-
•r- 1 **-
>• >»•£
«i- 1 0.1—
2^.|2= .p g
3 CU -C '
r.
H—
O -P
E
O O
•p- -r—
+JM-
•r~ "r—
C CZ
j gj —
°* 5 •*o" ic
^ : £>•£ c -p '£ 3 r^i ^
S I .P- CU .p- C T- " J3 S- =
- t— E ai E s- to cu •
llllllllSli
> -r- 5 '0 -P CO S- -r- 2
t/)
"r~
—
^_>
^"
cu
•r- •
1
•r^ Ol CO "O .11
Q_
s-
OM-
•P O
O
E -P
•r- O.
O •
a. >— i
«t-T-
CU s- s- cu
CO S- O 3
o cu o~
S- >t— T-
CU O »r- CU C
*2> -P -P "O JC^
•r- O O O
2 •£ a- E -P
3 > t/> C
O S- CO T3
^= E cu ^= cu
to o O.-P -P
t_3
•PoS
cu
en s-
3 CU
O- 'S '
0 0
i^- cu0" r^ .
rvl vx "O -P ' — *
^^ d c- 1
a: u. «U 3 0>U-
/5 • -r- 0 -r- 1
5i lE00-1^
|__f (—"• ""^
I
.
.
?
3
«
o
JJ,
22
-------
O
C_9
U.
o
at:
oo
CQ
O)
.y Impairment
14-
.0
c
o
•r"
-P
C
c
to
C -O Q.
•i- to E
Q O
-P
C
. to
u> U
> T-
c
tO -P
E Q
3 a
S-
c
Concept:
Pro/Con
Commenter:
-Q - . - - • o [
o> '43 "
"*""" >
l ,1
a «T ,:
-QO) . "° !
r! g i
i 11 1 !
to O to ,7? j!
> rn cu jl
0
i
cu - i
CU Q) E !•
£ • ^'i , !
o> to 5- !
fO CU i
to -P -P i
•r- 0 CU l
0 ^T3 j
CU i
CD ;
5 ' ' !
o . • i
o • :
H- . ..-. i
10 i
i en to i
"a w -P t= "E
•O M— to to I
0 -P 0 _0 j
cu E t5 £1 • «JI ';
to O O T- -i- ' • !
o .p. .r- C E
O.4-3 <+_ cn en • i
o 'E E co co : j
"
."
:
•
O O O °-
S- to fO
CU CU r- -^
QL. *i — tO -E t^
fO S- CU E 0 t- 93
rv o i — O i- O
•P T- .,-« 4- ^"J^
r—O-P -Ptl) 'I- F"^S
g £ 2 -g oS -S • « « « ° .
o iS cr> E <^> -PCM cu cyi E cu LO to r>- •— > r~-
irtrvj r- ! its r»» E«D u_«5i- s- o toio LULD tos-t-^
EOJ s-oj o oj >-ioj oj cu r-i ^:oj oj ^f"0^1
S_l OJI T— • 1 1 fOI -E 1 i-l tOI Ot/JI
CUQ too s- coo -EO -PQ -Ptou- CUQ | .^-1 CUt-l fOI El 3fOI >>l XI +J,9J_
c--~. . eS> -P => to > oo:=» cu >• cu >• tocj>
l— if—i ^l—i «C •— ' ^D>— < CO"— i CO i— 4 • 3 •— i - 1 — •— i ^ *— '
i
i
1
i
i
! ?
1
E
i o
li ^
)l
23
-------
S-
co
•p
o
X •
CU E
•O O
£•£
ca-
ns o
o S-
•r- cu
s- Q.
cu
3 ra
E 3
to
CO •!-
s- >
'!/> S-
O) O
O 4-
I
•r*
ra
a.
E
I
CO
CO
O
•r-
•P
C
CU
a
CO
c
r— O
(O •!-
£=•«•>
3 •!-
•P "o
Z G
VP*
C CU
o in
•r- S- -P
•P (t
C -O Q
•r- (O E
4— *i—
CU t-
Q O
•P
C
1 CO
c
cc$ H
=S I
nr ]
Ii
o.
• *
•P C
O. 0
0) 0
CJ ^X,
o s-
O 0.
Commenter
Q
cu
• _-
j^ ^
co cu
CO E
0-r-
E CU
1-4 TD
•
I «
. O E
4J E CU
C -i— CU
fe •»-> 5
CD o w*e
c -i— -i- cu
.= cjl 13 J3
4- -r- -
-s§> |§
cS^ Q"-^
+j CO
O to _£=
4J .^ "^
-O (O "3
S- cn cu
CO 3 CO
to to <— •
(O O
O CU E
Z E ^^
0 C-> 0
E
•r— • _.
fO CO <»
•P E j_
§ £ (0 CU
^ •- s i
CO C1-
O CO 03 T-« 4-
-o r- oco oco o tr»
fO U CO CM -r- -P CM
s- ja i -i cu i 4- _E i
03Q EQ -PU. -r- COU.
i— i— 1 != 1 s» cu> +J^» >— i Q- I~H
o
•p
to • , •
-o • cu cu •
0*3 1- CU
^= CO CO O O
4-> S- <0 E E
CU 3 > -rj-a
to o cu'i—
O CO O CU 3
z: E I— 2: en
CO t|i. nT3
O O CU E
E CO (O •
»O CO E E
"O C *O ** O
.,_.,_ s_ +J .,-
X 3 E CO -P
CO fO r— (O CO
CO o o
cu
-o
•r- S-
•P tO O
E E -P
«a o T- • •
O O CO CO
«1- -a > ro
•i- r— XI
CO O S- CO
•r- .E s> -?s
CO i— I 3Z f-H O i— i -E>— i 1
24
-------
tJ
d)
E
O
•r- CD
•PC
O
C-3
O
>-
c/O
CM
I
co
uu
_J
CO
01!
s-
(C
E
O
J3
03
O
•Jj
a>
i
*-
i*
jn
-i-J
O5
!
|
ii —
' ro J-'
ftr— .,_
;•«£ s
i CD
!-H> O
; o •*->
I
i
\
\
' r-
5
; ^
CJ
; si!
i •£
j Ji;
i Q
I j—
i CC
!
i
i
i
' tO E
^* CO
'. 4-5
-Q ^
Qj p—
( 4-5 r—
i fO O
r- Q
! 13
! Oi >•
i O) C
! Qi fl3
j
i
i
;U E
Q. O
CU O
u\
= o
i
i
si
CU
E
O
0
V)
CD 3
E CD
•i — E
ET- >,
S- •)-> 5-
3 CO 03
-a o
-O •!-
CU CU -P
-O_Q 03
•r- +-> CO
5-T3 CO CU
Or- 0
to 3 £ S-
S- ^" ^- o
i~» tO tj— tO
^
CL.
.
1 *
Q.
O)
^«
E O3 CO
O S- CU
4-> 3 O
E 03 3 CM
•r—'Z^ O \
-E CO Q
C0"4- CU 1
03 O C£ >>
CD •
E T3 CU
•i-
CU CU E
•••I-'- O
S--D Q.
Or-
CO 3 CO
CU O
O- CO 03
4^
0
E
c •
0 0
.[^ ^^
•i— tO
ET-
M— o3
CU O)
.r"*i • ^.
CJ
O
O)
•"~3
O
5-
S-
a>
> p^^
•i- VO
C£ CM
1
+j r^>
^~ 1
O3 ^*
t\O i— i
s~
cu
"^3 ^—
•r- CU
to 2
E O
O Q_ •
0 E
O3 O
-O E -r-
i — 03 to
3 .a -i-
O 03 O
J=. i— CU
00 «=C T3
•o i
CU S-
03 03 CU
r— Q.J3
E- »r-- 1 ^
Q
0 4J
E T- -0
1 ^ f ~ ,
E -£J OT3
03 -i- ^= CU
4-» to to "O
3 T- 3
r— > +J r—
i— E O
O O CU E
r\ .jj g .,—
0
>.
E
O 03
•r- Q.
r— E
J3 O
3 O
D-
cu oo
03 O CT>
E -i- CM
O > 1
N S- Q
•i- CU 1
S- OO >•
•=C i— «
•-5 "43 • . • .
E -i- E
0 E O
O ••!- -i-
r— -P
-M 03
O J= &-
E -t-5 CU
•i— Q-
-a s o
i— •
3 4-> Cf-
O -r- O
-E E
to S- to
CU S-
•=C Q. 3
Q- O
UJ 03 ^=
CO
CU
03 1
S-
0) >,
Q-i— T3 CU •
O to E JE E
33 -MO
•4-J O O -t-
E 3 S- to •»->
03 E - CU T-
i — -r- to E
Q. +-> S- O -r-
E 03 Cm-
CD 0 CU Q- CU
z: o >, o -a
O CJ)
o
CJ>
CU
o
•i- O
> -a to
$«- fO fO
CU S- CD
OO O
i— tO O OO
O O CM to CM
•r- O 1 03 1
r— U_ Q- Q
ja ti_ i i
3 0 > i— >
O_ I — l U-l i — i
i to
to S- i to
CU CU 3 OJ
0 .E 0 S-
S- +-> r- CD
3 03 i— E
0 M- 0 O
10 T3 t|_ o
E
"O 03 4-> <+_
CU S- O 0
0 •<->
3 CU E
5- J3 • CU
•4-> O 4->
tO "O tO E
E i— i— •!-
O 3 03
0 0 CD
C£. to O) -r-_
»
CJ
^— ^
03
^ — ^
CD
i — »— )
^~
•r" **
3T O
5- i-l
CU 1
•*s t — ^
E 1
3 >
CQ l— l
i
i
,
jj
1!
!
i
i
!
j'
i
i to
E 03
O S
O
CU CU •
S- O +->
S- 0
O 3 eC
+•> O
to CU
CU -E
O -O 4->
E CU
CU 4J E
S. 0 -r-
a> 3
CU 4-> O
a: to E
'
o
CD
E
•r-
E
•i—
i>-
to
E CO CD
03 CU CM
O S- CM
•i— CD 1
S- E Q
CU O 1
E C_5 ^"
ecC ' — '
•a
cu
3
E
O
O
25
-------
to
1 1 •
^r*
O
O
U.
o
BC
3
to
*
CM
|
CO
_]
CO
1
f*
4
^
=
S_
tl;
a.
I
il
!f
!i
i
i
* ^H
I O
• «f—
i "i
.p
to
c
i 0
I <•»
0)
I rv
I
il
il
1
\l
(
• -P
• (/) C
J> re
4-
: « IE
!r- C
I gi>
s CU C
Ho; rc
1:
lo. o
S"
'c c
*o s-
o a.
•
i"
1
H
'- s.
1' C
if
r c
CU •!-
CU-r- CU
^=-P T3
'& CU
4-> 3^:
O
jQtf- C
ro O •!-
•O E W
CU O E
E-r- 0
S- 10 •!-
CU 3 to
Oi — l/l
E O T-
0 E E
<_}T- CU
.
5
• Q-
q-
O
-P
C
o
. -^
[ ca.o
I s.i
*o
CU
CJ
S-
3
O
S-
o
•r-J
ro
E
q_
O
E
O
4-3
•i—
E
CM
S
>.
E
O
•r-
4-5
(0
O
•i—
f-
•r~
&_
r^
U
•
-o
t:
11
1
1
CU
s--o
CU
f
-p
S-
3
U-
CU
CU
E
(/}
•n-
I CU 1 W *
^0 +J-O- -r-CUEE
^D~ S-mE-P en O «/l -r-
O CU • CU CU T- "P" ' ^3 E "P; ^E
l5 c O "O S- '^* CU '4— E CU
CD OQ_ O4- EO CU O4->
/•C r— .« C" fll CU 4-^ CU "O *P" *O
j^ •*- *^ ^ ^ , -iL ^ » ^ -^
| ^ | ^ (ft Q >j^3 > ^ "*"^ •-'
< -a -g ^ra e •£ |»3 w '5) o '-P ^ EC?
33 ja-r--P- -p- -i— 4-> ;r-"O
JCECU r— CU3Q- O18^.2- Q.^
o o ° °-
o
^^ •
£ • o-
a . cS
1—1 S r2 'i— ! |5 OCM
To CM Ul CM CM ' 4->CO
2_ 1 ' sE 1 "' * '
-^ > S: S rfS (2S
>N E
^* O
r— O
ro
o «n
•p- S-
M- Q) CU •
•r- 4-> S- CM
OP- O l£3
CU CU «4- (
cn t/> _Q
in -a TD t
co a> 01
*» •
CUTS 4-> 4->
s- 3 o tn
Olp- 3 3
EOS-
OX^
cj cu tn
0
*
a.
s-
o
o
"4->
E 4->
O O
4-> O O
CU CD CO
"a-E U.
E CU 1
H- <-H
3
=c
.
.
^^_^
-a
OJ
3
E
'•P
E
O
0
26
-------
T3
T3 (1J to
a> -P a>
-p
s_
cu
o
'fC -P
E O)
-P O
0 -P
C.
0
0
3
S-
1 1
Reconsl
i • +•
1 to c
> ft
J._
•T"
•o r
ro w **"* *— ' w w *• -
S_ 0 S- CU 0 0 Oi-
>, cu i — "O O C" Q_ Q- CD O i —
0 E S- -P-P 3 .E 0 <0
-a to o- -r- « o
C_3 flj S- T3 0-4- > 3 0
O-p '~~*
O O T3 <— 1 CM CO
co -P .0 o (C
to
E
0
c/1
-E 10
Si
CU
cn cn-P
..— -i— 3
O Q M-
*
t/>
O
O-
O-
C3
1
tt
E
•i —
to
3
E
O
•
to
CU C
ai co
-P E
a. o
a> o
o *^
E o
o t-
C_3 Q-
s-
O)
-p
E
(1)
o
o o
<_>
O
a;
^z
o
S-
0)
-pet U-
tOOO 1
E
O
CM
\x i
OQ
S_ i
n3
5-
CU
to
3
a> tn
> I
o E-O
o s-
^: -r- to
•p -p o
i— 3 CD
ta i—
a> >— i—
o
CD •
-a
o
o
27
-------
•P
o
0 -P
C (U
£
td
•P
3
0
0.
•P
Q. o
cu o
u
c O
o s-
LJ Q.
S-
(C
Lf>
CCV1
td i
i—Q
"o>
10
CO
I
o
t—I I
o >
Q i—i
o3 t-l
C CVJ
O I
-P Q
3 >•
28
-------
s
CO LJ_
'
~y Ij
UJ O
s:
51 "5
O CU
O T-
I i «f—
O i —
*^- "rV
C£ •!-
a.
co in
cu
CO
1
CO
UJ
1
CQ
h-
'i
f
'<• CU
23
!• o
:' S CU
;i c3 E cu
'' ^* O 5*
!i o ~~ o
re c:
[l>— t - *r- •
i!
i!
jj Q
!j ^
ii •
ii
i*
-.'
ji s^ f0
jj r— >.
Si fO O
i' > s-
H C CX
!: S- 0.
|l Q. 03
lj "1(^ ,j_
!!
i
[i
i &
1: CU -r-
! T- O
i! If- Q.
I **- •"
1! «=c cu
ii i-
Ii
J!
i
1 *l
\ CU 0
i E O
it O S-
ii — ° Q~-
s
i
i
•
ii S-
!| 4-
< 0
!' C
i: t-
1
S- 0
O -r-
q- SM-
CU 4- •
CU -r- 3 4->
E > co E
•r- CU E CU
"""
4->
I r"s •
CU E ~O
•— CU
0-E E
££5:
4J CU
E o -a
r-5>,
5243
U_ Q- E
CU
q- OVr-
O E O
CU 1 ^ tf—
r- E 4-
0 CU 3
rr; E m
n_.
i/i
cu
tO O
•i — S-
O 3
EM- 0
•i— O to
r— CU
r— CU C£.
3 r— en
«4-> C13 LD
-< 2: >
D- i— i
i ^ i ^
•i- 1 V)
4-5 _Q U- E •
O T- O
E to O
•1— •
i— E O
3 >, CU E •
0 M- E 1—
_sz. -i- s- -a c3i
tO 4-5 -r- r— "r—
CU 4->
t/5 O-
O E
Q. CU
a. x
O cu
-o
i— 3
3 O
0-E
onsibility sh
be shared - s
tate ' s .
Q- CO
tO 4-5
CU O CU
fV^ C** f*>
0
4-5
o
cu
o
O-
S-
cu
> r*^
•r- VO
&L CXI
1
40 / — »
1 — I
(O >
co i— i
<4- CU
O 4-5 1 4-5
03 CU i—
CU CU 4-5 S- 3
_C t/1 CO tO •
4-5 3 O) E Q-
o 03 .a o >— '
CU 4-1 O « O CO
03 CU CU E O O CU
.E W E CU E 4-5 S-
>,4J E s- "o -a 4->
i— S- S- -i- i— CU E
CU CU CU O3 3 S- CU
S- Q-4-> Q. O -r-
03 X CU E -E 3 E
n; a) "O -r- cr o
.
T3
t/) CU
-a 4->
CU o3
CU i —
0 Q-
X E
CU OJ
S- E
o3 O
<4- O
CU to
r— tO
O CU
S- S-
cn
s: E
—I O
U- O
o
g^
O 03
•i- Q-
S 0
3 0
Q-
cu co
03 O O^
E -i— OJ
O > 1
N S- Q
•r- CU I
s- co >
•=£ I-H
I
!J
E
S-
cu cu
o . to
0) r-
4-5 4-5 03
(0 E4->
4J CU O
CO g 4-5 : .
1
•*-*
to E
•t— "r-
CU
t— O •
o o -a
r^ ~^
01 O c—
E CO • E
O • S- O
O ' — 1 O3 *i~
LO CU to
tf— j™. >r_
O E O O
•i- CU
E E O
•r- O E to
c .,_ cu
cu . . 0 03
jj CU <"
..— 4-5 tO r—
, ,0 CU 4-> CU O
!5 CO "3 CU -P +*
.,- JE .a ••- o
,-0 J2 CU CU
Q.4J 3 4-5 CU T- 4-5 4-5
,/» O T- T- to 03 n3
CDS- ^zS-<4-E4-5(U
S_O> tOO-r- OCOE
^1 g— i — Q_ — ^'r-
^- j_> SI •*-* tO OO ^* i —
Sfrt — 1 3 3 CU _1 CU
U_ i. LL.03CTDlU.-a
Q. C_> CJ> Q-
_v^ 03
« /it ^- •
b 4j . S- E
0. 03 E CU +f
4\J CU *r~ S.
0 CO N CO
11 E 5 E 0
^loLO -g tO °^ .EC§^CO
(— > .p.. ^-) t— i CU t— i "CO CD CUCO
0 CXI CDCXJ S- CXI E "4-J^-i
«,- 03CD>^> 3 0 0 >
Q 1— 1 1— 1— 1 3 1— 1 C-3 *-"
j
i
i
i
(continued)
29
-------
i in
LU
O
U.
o
co
•
oo
co
UJ
<*-
o
U)
CU
CO
c
o
Q
(ft
CU
;
«
!
I
1
i S_
(D
i j=
O
if
•^
r
1*^.
Kp 4-?
i-c c
'cu cu
Involvem
non-
involvem
0
CO
Ou
r— >
ta o
> s-
O Q-
5- O-
CL CO
Q. co
j O
(O •(-> -p CD •
O S- O CO
CO CU T- CU -r- E
OJ-O-O E E O
to -I— CO Q) O T-
0 to -r- E -P
O.-P S- 4-> O CO
Q.3 3 3 O S-
o o •*-> o cu cu
E CO -r-
S- M-
CU
CU E 10 >
T3 O E CO
O .E
CO tO'l—
O) E4-> T3
CO O Q-i — •
O -r- E 3-0
Q.-P Q) O S-
Q.CO X .E O
O E CU to "£.
0 >
o
CD i—
S- CO
S-
•P CD
O CU
f-* f_\
E
r— •
3 -a cu
0 E -P
J= 'CD T-
co E co • _ >
CO CO
•P ,T- 3 -P
M— ^ E CO
*|^ ^"i >
E O *r- CO CO
•i-«f-OS- TDE "Or-IO
•Z C7> CO i — ••— i — OO •
OCO-CU-P3E 3»O -PtOO-r- O>-P>>
r— CO • E 'i — XI r-" -E CO O CO
— < -i— > CO O) COX:E'O .
"
CO •
1 CU SI
S- S 1
•t— CO LL.
a-M >>
• to "E
to o
cn co
Ei — "
•i— O CU
t[ f— ^
•i— -i— -p . .
-P CO
E -P
CU E-P
-a cu o
t-« E E
O O- O D_ D- CJ>
•o
CO
^
•i— O
o o
coco
E COCO
CU I
•P toQ
in 10 i
3 H-t
i— 0
E ta o
S-
o to o 3 a>
CO CO 4-3
C£J 4-00
CO E O Q.
cr o oo 'coo tocoiD
•i-'oo tooj cnoo cus-Ln-aio
^:i COI T-.QI 3CUICUI
OQ 0-Q JC3Q CD-PQ-PO
4J 1 | O i — 1 CO O 1 •!— 1
3> ,— >. -r-CJ>- >E>-
:E»-H uji— i s: >— i _i i— i =3 1— i
*^-^
>o
CD
3
E
•r-
E
O
O
• —
30
-------
o
o
o
ce:
00
OO
ca
CJ
4-5
O
a.
to
cu
S-
OJ
x:
0
+-> 4->
c: c
CO O)
E J S
CD c a'
> o >
i — C i —
o o
E 'c
i — i »i —
o
i CO
i CL.
<
• \ TO
: r— >
': « O
> 1-
0 Q.
! J- Q.
i O. fO
' Q. to
: "^'-o
!
i;
4J
r-
1 •(— T—
-P X!
ro -i—
' ?~ t/
S- E
•r- O
It- CL
I! ec a
h *-
i
ii
Q. O
OJ O
u \
; c: o
u o t-
,
.
ij •
• i ^
i
!l to
tO O •[-
CO >
_J CO E
-CJ>
i — i 1
ooa
o>
•ZZt—t
r— E
C O
O
-a
T3 CO •
i > E
3 r— 0
0 Ov-
er) E 0-
•r- CO
s: o
_J CO X
U- XI CO
-OS- -1
r— co -a u.
1/1 "^ o "o a. 5 •»->
__1 O CO -E CO -i- CO
>>
•1—
XI E
•r- O
t/5 -i—
E +J
O ro o—
Q. E CO
CO E rO
S- S- -4->
to •»->
rO O) S-
o s-s:
x: o — i
3 <4- U_
o
t/)
M- CO
°. 1
4J 0
a. to
CO CO
1_»1 U—
S- rO «— 1
3 S_ 00
O 3 1
to +-> Q
to ro 1
S >-i
S-
ro
CO
"o •
CO
CO •—
> 0
ro S-
-o
T3 CO
r— E
3 •!-
O 4—
-E CO
CO T3
(O
_E O
•(-> to
-a s -t-5
I— • CO-r-
3 S--r- E
0 >> > S-
<- a> CD
co 1-1 s- o.
S-
1 O
•^ 4->
> E
•I"3 C
O to
3 to •
"O CO to
E to CO
O IO O
O rO S-
-a >> o
p— •»-> tO
o'r^ 3
x: ••- co
CO X5 E
O-
E
CO
• ^
•i- CTi
o o
to Q
CD 1
CO >
rv i — i
Cvj "O
00 CO
01 oo • to -M
"-^ CO XJ CO
ra 1-1 «r- -P E i—
LO T— fO rO O-
X2 E Q. O
4-> ro
E •"—•!— -i— to S-
TD •r-'-~ ro Q.
i — i — CM E i — i to
3 -~-*- O 00 E
_E ro 0 3 0 r—
CO
•a
'3 "a
o _co
i 5
•a
•— o
3 +->
O CO
tO S-
CD CD
s: > 3
_J. ro O
U- -E Q.
Q_ Q_
Q.
O
JC
to to
E ro -^
CO X S-
PJ; QJ ^D
~g* *^O
4- to res
4- o to s-
O OO CD O l~-
to t-H E P— OO
CD S- i— 1 S- O «— 1
3 CO 1 CO C_) 1
C7) +J Q "O CD
ro O I r— f- 1
CO ==• S> T- O >
1 i — 131—1
1 i —
CD rO
x:-r- s-
O 00 cr>
3 CO CO ;!
E
0 E ••-
O T-
CO O ;
^O ^U '
co 3 E • ;
"5. -t-> O rO •'•
0 T- T- +•>
, — ^_> 4J :
r— ro (O T-
u^"C> '
n— (i
~ . j'
x: co •
CO E ~O
CO CD
S J= -r- i
u_ O)T- • i
E S-
<4- CO fO i
0 S- r- !
-)-> 0
CD to i
r— T3
O CO E
O£ X3 rO
ro -P
x: o •
E to
r— • rO
3 S- -0
0 >>
XT O
CO r-H OO
-
D-
E
CO
N
'43
C_3
E «-H
O 1
•r- Q
S- 1
ro >
21 ' — '
-a
CD
3
E.
•p—
4->
E
0
O
31
-------
0)
JD
W
CU
CO
I
CO
CO
> O >
i— C i—
to
o_
TO O
> s-
o ex
s- a
a. S
o. in
CO-r-
•r- T—
•P.O
re-
•r- O
a. o
0) '" "
u1
c o
o s-
O)
CD
CD
t/i _a
re
+j-a
> o
If)
CO
4-> Ol
cu s:
w _i
o u-
•a I-H
cu oo
CT>4-> >,
cu
-r-
O r— >
J= O CU
co > s-
O)
ca
CU I
4-> CQ
re
en
Or- re
^ o c
co > re
C -i- Q.
-a -a T- cr>
c— cu .a c
3 > -I- •!-
O e— CO S-
J= O-r- O
CO > > 4->
cu
CO r—i— O
•p 3 re-c
43 J-^ 3
-Oi— O
co
3 CU
O >4-> >»
jc re o re
3 I CU
O S- 4->
jc re re
•»-> o
-a
c re
re 4->
re
cu re
-a s-
cu en
0-r-
S- CU
CU T3 •
> E O
O 3 E
a_
O
s-co
CU
03 i-«
CU
N
•«-> Q
•»-> I
Q- i— i
CU
CU
CD «=i-
S- Q
S- I
cu >
CU
LO
re r>.
E .-I
re i
4->Q
re
o
o E
•r- co >
CJ i— I
oo
o
cu
-o
re
o
CO
re co
o o
CM
CU I
CO O
•I- I
o >
CQ 1—I
•a
cu
32
-------
UJ
u_
o
Q£
-
CO
1 E
E •!-
o s-
CL O
.
1
i cU
I •*=
!
!
o
i
li
•' ij-
ji
jl
1
!!
1
l(-
O
to
CD
•r~
4-5
•!•"•
0
Q.
CD
o;
Involvement/
non-
involvement
Q
to
^"
1— >
ro 0
> J-
0 Q.
i. a.
O_ f^
CL w
"5
r~
•I— •!—
4-5 .O
ro T—
E to
S- E
•r- O
<+-. Q.
4- 10
< CU
5-
Q. O
CU 0
U ~-v
C O
o s-
(
c
4
i
t_
to 4-5
1) 'I—
S- E
O
3
CU
I— •!—
CU
ro •
"3 o
to 3
to
CO •—
4-> (O
ro E
4-5 ••-
C_J
"
g
—
_i£ ro
E4->
re O
ro
S-Q CO
O i-l
E-E CM
S-4-5 1
CD S- Q
> 0 1
E
O =
C M- tO
04-54-54-5
•r-* re E E E
4-> r— CU CO ••-
•r- 3 O>4-5
E CO rO to CU
•r- cu •>- cn •
l»- S- tD 10 <0 4-5
CU • CU E 3 O
TD E 4-5 O CneC
•r- ro O E
10 E (0 H-
CU S 014-5 r— O
to — 1 -i- O
O U_ to E .C CM
Q. Q) 4-5 CD
CXM- a to -i— oo
[y t- cu •
•i- O > 4-5
S_ M- O 0
o • «c
5 4-5 O CU
3 T- -r-^E
O rO
O 4-5 i— -r-
3 33
O O O -=C
O Z O CQ
0 0
5^
E co
o c:
0 T-
f? 1
E tO
O ' — CM (O d» CM
0 JE CM U S- CM
re i -i- cn i
CU 4-5 Q S- E C3
*sy t— 1 «^C *~~*
CQ
O «r-
O •!-
0 S-
4-5 0
^T" rl—^
_J 3
U- (O
E 0
1 CU CU •
E E E >,
•r- CU E S-
> 3 rO
5; r— to
i o to to
LL -s. .r- 01
O 1
4-> X •
CU O
-a E
£§-a
•r- CU
3 E X
CT 0 -r-
CU v- tf-
S- E
•r- E
CU Q-T-
ja o
E to
•o s- o >,
! — CD T- rO
3 "O 4-5 -O
O E 0-
-E CU E t-
to s- cu o
0
03 ^>.
^^
CU ro
3 Q-
0 E
D- 0
CJ O
O •*
•r- 4-5 CM
M-^= 1
•r- COQ
O-r- 1
(O _1 >
D_ i— l
1 i — tO I —
S- 3 •!- Q± E to
4-5 -i— tO tO CC -r- rO
O (O CU >>T3CQ 4-5
E O- S- i — E CU to
E ro CU S- i r-
-O-r--EEEOO>
i— O ro El- S-
3 >vr- O r—
0^-^:1— oto >->re
^T-SD: cucu s-s-
to 4-5
U- I-H
to •
•i- tO
O) E
> 4-> O
^_ _. _._>
~^" "^ ^
J_J "^ -«
o o's
E -a cn
QJ
to o s-
CU 4-5
.0 co
4- 4-5
i 1 \ g—
U_ 10 T-
Reduces State's
authority.
C_J
o
CD
UJ
CU
E^
> T- CO
- E s- tn
O O CM
tO -E 1
^t 4-5 Q
O 3 1
rO-=t >
*~3 <— •
(continued)
33
-------
CO
U-
«f-
o
CO
•p-
•p
C,
O
a
w
ai
s-
CO
«4_>
o
Involvement/
non-
involvement
o
OO
O.
r— >
CO O
> S-
0 CL
S- 0.
a. ca
p U)
«C-p-
4-5
CO't-
> t—
•i— *r"
•P.Q
CO'I—
E V
•r- C
t *"
a.
Commenter:
g
ca
_J 0
U- CD
o to •
E c/>
•a co
COP— O
•P 3 S-
ca o 3
•P.E 0
o
o
•r-
O
CO
UJ
r-4
r— IO
CO CM
S- 1
coo
E 1
CD*— I
a> to
CO E
> o
CO -P
S- CO
CO r—
3
t/J D5
S- CO
3 *~
O E
a. -r-
CO CO
CO O O i —
1 \ £~ pZ ^[ ^ • ^3 (Q
0 -P S: r— 05-
E E_I04->0^ E01
E OU. E E «=C CO
•O -r- ••- CO CQ -O +J
i — to O E r— E
3 -a -r- • -a E E 3-1-
OCO>t/J OO O-
jE>co"Otj JC-PIO
<0 ,— S- CO i— CO tooco
O O 3 E -P CO -P
S:>D-OOcOcO STi — V)
ICl— IS-JCJE-P — ICO-r-
U_.,— (/-)O.t/1.4-»OO Ljl.tO> ^____
S- S- CO -P
r- T- 1 CO -O E
in O -O E > CO
liii =s°s:^ci
01 r- 3 S- 0
^-03 tn-Po-PCOr-
~iQO 'COOS-SECO
u!4Ja. i:co4->M-a»>
1
CO
•a E
P-
O O CO
in co
E "O c/)
O CO
•r- -P S-
-P cyi o
CO CO it-
's 3 tJ
f2 ^ P*
0 CO CO
c_> ja -o
00 0
o
0
t/j
co
Q
'• O
f^?2 . 5 S "« OT
U- CM ^CM E CM
^.Q XCQ T- 0
H-T 1 «C 1 -I-3 1
S= =s" 5 S ^ S
CO
o
o-o
CO
t>E.t
3 -p La
CO Q-'i-
•p- E X
> CO CO
CO X •—
Di CO M-
-. •
o
CO
CO O
E •!-
•r- >
r- S-
O CO >>
S- cy> +J
CO T- CM
0 0 S- CO
•p- O CM
3331
O Q- •< >•
GO 1— «
-
O S- S-
• -P O O
>> •*->
l,_ +J CO t— T-
O -P- > Qi E
S- cO>
Q. 3 O O -P
CO E T-
W) -P r—
CO (/) "O P— -P-
jC CO i — 3 JQ
•P 3 cyj -r- •
S CO O E to O>
_l -P JC 0 T- E
u_ co co o > i-
4t
>> '
CO O CO
CO O>
CO -P S-
J!=T- o.
* * ^^^
O^4->
C/> P—
•O E-r-
r— o ja
3 Q.-P- •
O (/)(/) Q.
JE OJ-p- h-l
co s- > oo
o
«\
<4-
0 CO
o
0.^5
CO CO r—
O OO CO
CO LO
ca j=3: oo
E -P CM
OP- • 1
rs co > o
•p- CO E 1
^ ^
(continued
34
-------
s-
cu
JZ
-p
o
•p -p
c c
[CU 0>
I S
CU C CU
> o >
r— C. r-
o o
I—
LU
o
o
to
O)
O r-
cm
T- • C CU
4-5 I— O -P
CU S- C£. 00 C
> O) >
CU E M- •
4J "S- S- i- 00
O i— O CU -P 03
C. 03 M- O- C 4J
O S- O CU 00
O *r- CU i- "O -r-
Q C CLCL-i- >
•r- 00 .E 3 -r- E
OO OO O O
oo 03 "O a. oo -I—
— •• cu -P
i 4->
i— O 3 O
res
o o- o s-
^: o. s- cu
oo i—
n3 oo >•!—<_>
I
O) •!-
> r—
•1— •!—
-P jQ
03 -r-
•r- O
M- a\
<*- 00
ct a>
i
cu
q- s-
o
OO
E «
O -P
•r- 00
-p -I-
« >
O
•r- r—
M — OO
00
O C >
CL en
00 -r- i— CU
CU 00 03 4^
S- CU t- 03
-O C04->
CU CU OO
r— S- -P
O O E CU
OO M- T- J3
o
o
cu
i— CT>
UJ CO
CM
03 I
0.0
o
•P O.
o o
cu o
t— O CVJ
OO O
03 Q-
OQ
03
o
cu
a:
o oo
s-
CU
4-> 3 Q
00 O I
Q) <-} >•
-a
cu
3
o
o
35
-------
36
-------
O)
•I- I
on
LU
O
CJ
O
00
co
I
I
S-
01
x:
-P
o
It
(^
ii-p -p
1 c c
1
1
1
_J
U-
t-
o
to
a>
•n*
4^ .
r—
• r—
in
C
O
0.
in
eu
r**'
cu cu
E I E
cu c: a>
> 0 >
— C r—
0 0
c c
Q-
tn
a.
^~
^^ fO
r^ >
re o
> J-
O d
S- Q.
Q ft
Q. 10
r"~
•r- •!—
•p ja
fO T-
E to
s- c
•r- O
<4- d
«=C cu
+J c
CL O
cu o
u \
c o
0 S-
o o
a
•P
c
a
c
c_
•P CU •
CU r— 0 -P
_a -a 32: c -p
v) cu to i to E
a> -a s- c u- > s-
0 ,_ .,_ o -a cu
$-33 O ^T fO Q.
3 0 cr -P
o ^: cu o v- c M-
t/»
Q-CU C
Q. O r—
O -P O T- fO
r- C -P -P S-
cu cu a. en
> E M- cu
CU CU t/) S- •*-*
•o en cu o c
to o tn -I-
t— C 0 CU
i — tO S- S- i— i •
•r- E ex a. to
5 I/) tO
-o cnjc in -P
s: c c in to i/>
1 (O T- -I— ^— T—
U.1— Cr-O >
Q_
•=£. CO
. CO
a i
• a
oo i
.
-a"-. i o
f— f\\ •«« tt—
More defined ar
aggressive role
for FLM in vis-
bility protect-
o
cu
^£ C CO
to 0 -P
t/1 T-
-O-r- >
i— O
3 CU r-
O "^ tO
<— S_ •
in r— en t/)
(O CU CU
S C -P -P
[j ^ if_ *r~ t.O
O_
-
,(/)
to
C 0
o3 CU LO
N CO
10 •!- 1
•r- -P Q
> -r- 1
Q 1-1
-o o -P
C S- 0
to en cu
cu c -P
•a >-r- o
dj .,_ +j S_
c to c ex
-r- to cu
<+- cu E >5
CU S- CU -P
"O Cni— "r~
Cn Q-r—
S- IO E -r-
CU -i— -Q
•P CU •"—
4-> S- S- to
CU O O T-
CQ E1!- >
1
CD
rr~ ry
£^"t
• —
•(_ . ' ,
-O JEi C
1 •!— O
3 l/l T-
£ > 0
to cu
SCO
_1 CU S-
u. E o.
a. Q-
c
cu c
N CU
•r- N-
-P . "r~~
•r- +•>
° 0
c.«-l CO
q— Ln *• LO
q— co i — co
O 1 CU 1
.,- Q -^ a
£= 1 01
nn i — i 3Z i — '
c- •
O in
CU O E
-P -P O
CU >>4J
> -P 0
fO -r- C
•p ja
0 to E
C i-
tO CO 4-
CU O i-
0 -r- CU
Q C CL
-a s-
cu o
C -P
O S- 1— fO
oa: -P
C CX
-PMC
tO O r—
+-) -4-> tO
i— O -P S-
3 c.°- sr
o >— • c c
c_> co -i- -r-
0
o
CJ
cu
o
•r- 0
s- to
cu s-
co o
r— tO
O O CM
•p- O 1
r— U_
ja M- i
3 0 >
Q- i— i
-1
1
1
S-
3 C
o o
c cu
o s: -Q
O _J
U_ "O
cu o o cu
-p ^: s-
i cu to -r-
cn o 3
c c D- cr
o cu •— ' cu
i s_ oo s-
' -
.
•
Q-
1
c
O l/»
s- cu
•r- 0
> T-
c ^
cu
•P OO
CU i — CM
3 to i-i
^: -P i
-p c u_
3 CU 1
00 i— »
"-a"
cu
^3
c
4J
c
o
o
37
-------
E
O
to
ai
(A
c
o
Q.
IO
a
4J
U
U
i— -^ T
£_
co
4J
o
c:
non-
involvemei
0
to
a.
^
~^s* ^
(O O
> J-
0 Q.
i- a
Q. m
a. in
^^ til
^
+J
CU-r-
•p- «r-
E "
•p- O
q- Q.
M- to
ef. CU
J-
•»-> c
a. o
CO 0
U "^s
E O
0 i.
o o-
si
a
a
c
V- ^L.
o u_
•p™
H~ O
•p™ 4-5
cn>,
•r™ 4^
tO'P-
CO O
CO .E
-^
5 Ja
Q. E rtJ
O •!- 1 •»•>
4-> 1 >, >> CO 10
tO O Jd M- 4-> •«-
S- -P- E >
•a a. to •»-> T-
's 3 o cu 3 CO
co co
> S- CO
CO U
cn > s- •
E O 3i—
*r~ O fO
3 s- to cn
O CO CO
r— 3 Cni—
i— 0 Ei—
eC Q-T- -i-
•
S-M-
00
**" E 1 E si
•O O E -i- . >5
O -t- T- 1
•r- 4-> 10 «-l
S- 1C >>'P- 4->
CO 0 4-> E CD
O-'i— -P-' -t-5 CU JQ
<»- r— E T-
>yr- -p- CO 0 -O
•S E 5 £ i£ *3
CO CO -r- M- O
O T3 T- <0 3 .E
cr> T- >• Q. co w
-
3l t/) ^ ' CO
co .*£ -r- -a o
•r- O IO i — -I—
-> 0 T- 3 +1
CD ^a > o -r-
S- _^i jE S-
S_ cn to O
"DOE
r— 3 "P*" ^-C *C
3 E Q-
O >-H -r- UJ E •
.EO S S- 3
COO S- O CU
CU • M- -r-
«« CO -!-> >> S- >
a. ^: cu 4-> CD oo
LU +-> -O -r- Q. S-
•
-t->
(T3.E 0
>,-:"" cn a.
(O CU E E
r— p— «i— «i—
O. O E
S- -p- CO
•a E co •
p— i. E^ i-
3 O CO CO
^: rci CO T3
CO E T3 <«
E r— Q.
M- S- -p- 3 -O O
O O O CO r-
M- CO .E O CO
E to CO fO >
CU M- S- i — CU
~O O CU 4J Q-"CJ
s- o > o
3 S- T3 fO CU E S-
ca a. ta CL.Q o cu
o
o
CO
•2:
03
o
(C
EtO
O 1
•p-LU
o
o
"C"
CJ
CO •
r— O
UJ O O
CD
E S- CM
O CO 1
O 3 Q
to o i
3 a. >
h- >-i
a.
S-
4-> O
O
CO •
s~4->
•i- Q.
Q CU
Q ?">_*
" $- *zSr
E • +•> i-<
CUM- CO CM
E-r- CU 1
Or— S- Q
CO (O O 1
COO LU >
Q- i— '
0 0.
s_
•p* tO
. S-
s- cn E
cn o > D- -p— co
E 4-» U- C_J «*•
•r- T- z: oo CM
TD i — --^1 "1
r— fO 1— 1 U_ "O Q
CU 3 Q- 1 T- 1
iZ i— i o: i— i
-a
cu
O
O
38
-------
to
t—
UJ
o
C_5
o
>-
CO
I
co
CCS
39
-------
to
z
o
o
u.
o
C£.
CO
CO
CO
UU
S
to
01
l/l
c
O
D.
O)
o>
ec
--•» ra
r-- >
(tJ O
> S-
O
Q. CO
Q.
cu
o
CD
o
•!->
co
CD
O
CU
t/)
(U
en
O)
'o
5?
D. O
8"
C 0
0 S-
1 —
1
Commenter:
H—
0
• s-
u cu
0 •»->
(/> l/>
10 CU
r—U_
tO LO
C 0) i-t
O -4-* 1
•i— ro U_
to co >
z: t-»
o.
cu
N
'•£
•r-
CJ
10
jT^H
CU 1
^ 0
fO >•
SHH
O-
(O
O
N
$1 3
C CM
S- cnco
CU C i-f
-t-> 5 Q
3 -r- 1
o 3: >
CO I-*
D-
• c
CU
•r-
t ^
•4—*
•I—
O
to
••CO
•p f^
CO 1
cu >
n.
cu
N
•^*
4->
• |—
O
E CO
010
S- 1
o :=>
s: HH
D_
C
cu
N
*-P
O
•<0
0 1
c._ f^i
S- 1
(0 >
3 HH
D-
rtS
El
O
"S
z:
•s-
O)
•r—
_1
O) "-••
o
S-
3
C
LO
CU 1
•I"" 1
_1 >
1— 1
Q-
cu
N
• |<«
4->
•p—
CJ
S- LO
CU 1
N Q
U_ l— I
D-
N
•r~
4->
•^
• *>
cu
*r~
McConnoch
IV-D-53
Q_
C
cu
, N
5
o
§*
t— 1
•r- d
HO ^^^
-a
eu
o
o
40
-------
LU
•O
o
O r-
oc
1/5
co
I
CO
ca
«=C
41
-------
Ol
Q.
O
t-
CU
x:
0
•P -P
C C
Q) QJ
U E CU
> O >
r— C r—
O O
> >
c c
I— I •!—
a
co
a.
r- >
CO 0
> s-
0 Q.
i- a.
a. ro
rv tfy
•5
>i
4-
>«—
'•PS
E t/
•r- O
tt- a
M- 0
r
•P C
D. 0
CO O
E 0
O S-
o a.
Commenter:
*
o -a
C C
0 _l •
4-> C/)
•a res cu
E s- en
cu co (O
4-» T3 E
LU u_ s:
QJ
,__
^5
>
CO
CD+J
to cu -a o
•o 3 ns
1/5 s; >ro D-
E —I X E
O ' ' CO O *r-*
4-> -P E CO
aS -i- T- S to
•— JD —1 S-
3-r- -a u- co
OJ.E co >
CO E CO >>~O
a: -r- s: _a U • CO
"s"* fe E -3.
CO "O "=C >
0 >, E CU
co -r- co s-
o co o o
=5 i— E -P
E S- "O tn
o o co >>
o T- o cu
fO
•a •
CO >>
i— S-
O fl3
XX > 0-
•r— "O
CO
^^ "1^
i— 10
E CO
0 S-
QJ
_J E
U. •!-
Q. Q. . Q- 0 0
E W
CO ^ CO
•r- 0 ^ °3
.,- «O JE S- '
j- ^ 4-> W • OS CO
.__ 10 3r-« n5(O«3- OCO O Ol
O1O OLD ES-CM CM iII"ECIJ
«Q _QO -P4JQ -PU_ -i— O5U-
•>i c_i EO3I n3l O *r- 1
CU> «3> OZ> -P> rO_l>
^M >- H-i s: >— < co i-< D- i— •
.,
,. CO
rd
.E
1°
o
CO
. r
X X
O D- O- D- D.
^
d&
E
n_ a> co •- cu
co -E ^: N
t~~ -P "P *r~
.p 13 M- 1- T- "O
•r- i—O 0 0 CO
i^ t/> <£> O CO t-l 3
COCO O t/5 l/)r— l"i— IE
'«l COI+J
EEa S-Q COS-U. CD S- Q EQ E
(CCOl QJI -r-rai T-nJI S-l O
UJ i— < CO 1— < U_ l— I U- i— I 3i— < s —
42
-------
to u_
UJ Q
S
S w
0 •
•g; Q
=3 O.
to w
(S
CO
1
CO
UJ
_J
en
o
: c
g
r-^- >
(0 O
> 1-
o a
:- a
a. m
Q. 0)
«C !H
^
at-r-
> r—
•i~ *^
•(-> JD
(O *r"
E «/
•i- O
«t- a.
M- tn
cCa
4-> C
a. o
Q-
t
fl
-£
1
1
s- >>
0) 4->
CO
CEO
rB O 03
& J».
.^ O (Or—
S_
.
O '
>^
*4-3
•r*
S-
0
+J X X
3
•[— . :
S- . •—
fO f^~
— T— ••—
31 3
=3
LO ^D °o * — I
"O r-~ OJ r~—
C OJ CO E C\J
(O 1 1 O 1
r- Q Q 4J Q
r— 1 1— 1 1 E 1
OS- O >• 3 >•
TC HH Q H-l I HI
43
-------
.G l—l
IO
UJ
O
O
u_
o
cs:
I
to
CO
Ul
CO
(O
CO
•»J
to
•I—
re
0!
S—
CU
•C
4-*
O
CU
coo
0 C i-
; 'r- 3
CCO
• cu c w
'.•O CO
S~ r- 3:
n o. cu
CO C
,.
O IO
>
£*£- CU
co o 4->
4-> «i- tO
O) S- 4->
S- Q) C/}
U -P
cu c
CO t-H
il I/
1 CU
£- *-
1 CU 3
! 4J -a
( 4-> CU
cu u
11 CD O
r a.
II
1 —
t
'
r
•s
i If
z o
i £
! 4.
! 3
r ft
!" +5 c
a. o
cu o
O "V.
c o
ll o a.
1
•
•
£-
a
•f"
c
i
c
| O
1 1 —
CU (3 •
C S— *r~ 4-^
0 S- E
•1-TD 4-> CD
4-> 0) 10 E
O4-> 3 CU
CU'r— "U O>
4-> E E «0
0-^-r- E
S-r— CO
a. E E
CD O
4J fO E to
•r-£Z O Q}
i— •!- S-
•r-TD 4-» 0
•t- 3 'i—
to O S- T3
> to c/) to
X
o
•
o "•
•a
«
*-^
CO
it f—i
SCM
•
•Q
a i
_!l-H
m
1 O CO
co 4-> 4->
1 — CO
3 ^" «i—
rrt i >
CU Ll-
i» ^*^
CU E
T3 O> CO
E CO E
CO S-
3 to CU
If) O CO i —
CU U -O
E E >>-i-
•r- 0) 4- to
r~ *r~* CO
O) CO 4-> O
T3 E E Q-
•r- O CU
3 -i- T3 to
CD 4-» T- CO
CU CU 1
> > E CU «
CO •!- O T3 CU t— >>
c" 4^ O CO 4-*
CO 4-> >> E " E ••-
•acnoajcutoos-
r— CUCUi-TD4->-i-3
3 E 4— CU E c/) 4-* O
O -4- E CU O CO CU
OcOCUCU Q-OEtO
' 1
O) CU O to
•r- > 1 0 S-
.E -i- O CU O
4-> 0 S- 0
E CU 4-> O CO
QJ .r-j o 4- 4-
E -Q E
CU 3 4-> O
OI C/J CO E -i—
•a cu 3 E
3 >> O 0 0
•-0 i— Q 0 E
X
0
,
o
1 — 1
» CM
o oo
O 1
CO Q
X 1
cu >
1 1 .
to i—*
•I— 1— 1
r~
^11 **
fO *~^
4-> i— «
(U «
i— l
4-> CO
•r- (ft
^» CO
r~
CO CJ
04-
•i- O •
i— tO
4- 4-> CO
E E CU
3 E CO
•r- 1 ,>5
s- s- -a cu 4-
O Q) t— CU i- .E 'r-
^: > cu cu -Q o +J
4->O-E4J OrO SEQ)
3 cO4->4->cU CO — ICUCO
cos: >>4J o cull- -p o ,
CO U. CU 0) i— i _J 4- O
•O 4J T3 S- tO U. T- • "O S- •
C o CO • i— 'r— 4-3 CO i^ O. CO
(U4J>-O330JCUE-l->3 4J
4J .i-EOCTcrtE.CUcyjO-Mco
X >> S- 'tO E >
CU 1
•• -a s- i i -r- i in i i
,. •'.! — OJ CU '*- S- 1 .E 1 "E E CU
rjol — = Q.S- cOCUECU*
O ^= O D>4-> E O 1 — CU "O,
CO CU S- 4- EC/) E J3 E
4— • o O *r— "O CO
OtOT3 c/)i — O)S-«O
S-CU"O= CUi — -NO O>4-> ~O •
i— CU 10 r— 10 -r- T- CO -r- 4- E CU T3
CU>33O)4J4--r--a -r-"O>CU
ES- OCU-i-i — S-S-c/)i-CUOE
cOCUCU-ES-S- 3tt)fO"OOCUi- T- i
Q- tOJD to O)O4-4->T3 Q 4-> g Q.4-
1 1 CU
to E a> 4- to
-a o s- o 3
C 0 1
CU CO TD to CU
4-> >, S- CU CU i—
X .Q 4-> 4-» T- Q.
CU E CO 4-> -i-
4-> 0 -0 -r- 4->
X >, CU 0 E r- r—
r— tO CO -I— 3 •
^- E .a E-o
CO c/) • -r- E
O>4-> to c/) CO 1 CO
CU -r- 10 CU E i—
r— E cu E o s:
r- -r- i- CU CL_I 4-
t- 1 r— O> > to U- O
O 0
o
cu
0* 0
a. i — •
J3 0
S- 3 O
CU D-
> r-~. cu co
•i- tD CO O CT>
a; CNI E -r- CM
1 O > 1
4-> Q N S- Q
1 1 T- OJ I
CO > S- 00 >•
to i— i <=C >— '
x— ^
-a
cu
3
E
•r-
E
O
O
' —
44
-------
O
C_3
U_
O
CO
CO
CQ
to
fO
•P
to
03
S-
a:
a>
-P
(
f
O)
-C
i*~s
^—^
0)
c o> o
0 C 5-
•r- 3
CCO
cu c co
•a CD
i- r— 'Si
3 Q. 0)
CO C
O tO
i. f- 0)
CO 0 -P
•P -i- 03
CU S- -P
J- CD CO
U -P
!Q> C
CO 1— 1
to
o>
S_ J_
CU 3
•P X
O) C.
CO O
5-
o.
a
N
-P ••-
o s-
•ZL o
.c
•Li
(C
-P c
a. o
cu o
u •->.
c o
0 S-
e_3 a.
-
Commenter:
Q. CO •
cu o to co
tO 1 — O CO
3 cu a. cu
CO > . t- C
O CU • 35-
CU "O CO Q. CU
J2 CU ~O
o o -^ < —
_C -P S- -P T-
(03 '--3
•P co o S
ZD CU to "O
S- CU • -PC
, . ' C 3 S- >> C (C
•r- to S- CU
to i— co -P -^
"O CU o <*-
z: o c z: c_> o
^^o
5- CU
CU -P
> (O
1—
CU 3
> co
co a>
cu s-
r— C
3
•p
c~ "O
CDC
•i- (0
s:r~
i
1 C to
to -i —
•r- Q. CU
-a E-P
O t-t (0
O-P -P
c _ co
to O to C
CU'i- CU O
>4-> -P
CU S- -P O
i o co 01
1 1 C
s- • -p 3 o en
CU CU O r— T- C
•p to c o -P ••-
CU 3 X d) -P
TD T3 CU S- «O
•a i— o c
O C 3 C to CO
i— .E > -a to to
•P tO *r— CU CO
.C CU CO CU T3 -P
c7> c y > to
•i- T- _I CU T- C i-
S- E U_ ^3 to -r- > •
c_>
•
o •
o
fOi — '
•P OJ
C " CTi
CU CU i— l
•r-'tC C3
o.c i
oco ^>
co •— i
Q. Q- Q_ D-
c
O CO
J3 CU
3 • 0
C T3 C S-
CU 3 CU 3
N <=C N t- O
.,- -r- • 0 tO
+j ^: -P i— cu
•r- rO •*- r— 0) C£
C_5 -P CJ> i— i -P
LO ro >>oo oo 3 r— cr>
«>o -PO "Ln «-p»auo
COJ "CUOJ S-OJ CU-r-S-OJ
CU 1 CU ••- 1 CU 1 T- -P 3 1
Q.C3 OOQ -i.fi Q S-tO-PQ
C 1 CU O 1 O 1 -P C cC 1
cu> cuco>- •!—>• 0)"—
•a
c cu
3
C-P
O-r-
S--P
I—I tO
c
Ci— l
CO
Or-
•r- CU
s- cu
CU -P
M"
00
,— 1
1
1
1 — 1
-a
cu
3
-p
c
o
45
-------
to
ra
re
ra
CJ
-p
CO
S- E
i-
QJ
•P
O
QJ
C O) O
O C S-
•r— 3
CCO
QJ C W
•o ra
3 "a. QJ
CO C
^
o to
^.^
S- J- QJ
ra o -p
•P •!- ra
QJ S- -P
s- QJ co
U -P
QJ C
CO W
W
QJ
S- i.
QJ 3
-P "O
•P QJ
ai u
CO 0
a
•a
QJ
N
•P •<—
0 i-
•z. o
c~
i V i
•P
ra
•P c
0. 0
QJ O
E O
0 J-
o a.
U
QJ
•P
E
QJ
* £
o
QJ O ra
.E t/1 T-
•P ra s-
QJ QJ QJ •
_E s- -p ra
3 «r- -P
q- s- to
•P O O -r-
3 1 >
5t4,^
ra ra QJ ra
Q.-P i-
-o ra en
QJ to OJ QJ
E ••- S--P
S- 0 E
QJ ra •!-
0 -P ^
c to s-' s-
o 't— ra o
C_J > Q.4-
E
o
•r-*
-p I
ra •— E
E ra 3
en s- QJ
•i— en in i —
V) -a
QJ
fO
ra
si •
QJ QJ
•P 3
•r- en
- -s- ra
0 >
t
X
0 0-
-P 0
o. -a T3
» QJ QJ ra
WQ -P S- •
to to o
3 E i— QJ r—
ra o ra to s- o
S--P S- QJ O O
^ en 3 u
C -P S- U3 M-- «r-
o3-r-ra3 O CQ >
0 t_! |_ 1-1
1
eC i— i E
en •"-
to to
t-H tO -P •
ra to to
.E r— QJ E
•P O JQ QJ
•i- N
S E E •!-
•r- -r- +J
-P T-
E E -P 0
QJ O O
-P -r- E: M-
tO -P O
•^* E
to QJ • -P
E > = to
o QJ ra oj
0 S- QJ S-
E 0. S- QJ
I-H = ra -P
1 1
E .E-CJ E QJ r—
toio-pi — iioi — ajra
•r— s- 300 raoooj
E >j .E O • E O.T- S- •
ra ^: r— T3 tO QJ -O OE-P-r- tO
O U-PQJ J-QJt/)-r-!r-3-P
E-i-E'i-Q Nra TDCTE
tj 30 P-P- .a E s- -p ra s- E
-
X
-
0 0
o
o
(/)
to
•P «C >»
CO E
QJ E ra
o-° i"
u. -P to o to
O T-H O CO
E OJ i-H CM
O -P 1 El
en o Q 3 Q
QJ S- 1 O 1
S- O_ >• S- >
CD i— i DQ i— i
T3
QJ
E
O
o
46
-------
00
(—
z
UJ
O
O
CO
re
-P
CO
O)
cu
i
S-
cu
x:
o
0)
E O> U
0 E S-
•r- 3
CEO
a> E to
•o to
S- r— 5
3 a. cu
CO E
O CO
-5*
ecretary
nterior \
State
GO HH
to
0)
1- i-
Ot 3
-P T3
.p- CU
O O
CD O
i-
Q.
-c
fct
4-> -r-
0 S-
SZ O
.E
re
-P C
o. o
CU U
u \
E 0
0 5-
O CL.
imenter:
o
t -\
M- 03 ;>> 0 •
O JD (/»•»- v- tf)
S_ S_ V- -P CU
•P 3 CU r— 0 0
S_ +J r— .r- S-
O-O E 3 i- 3
O. E CU E -P O
to 03 O to to
E -00)
03 CO i — E S- CT>
S- CU « 03 E
-P to -r- E -r-
3 S- -P O S-
CU 03 -P O S- O
CT> O to 03 <4- -Q
E 3 Q. -E
O3r— -O E -P C7>
S- 03 E -r- V- v-
1 S- -r- 4- CU
CD 3 i — CU E
E -P -0 i— E
O 03 E -r- CU E
I E 03 3 -C5 O
•p •
CO CO
CU E
_Q CU
N
E T-
E'O
CU
CU M—
to o
•p -p
O CO
ECU
to CU
CU -P
O E
0 ••-
CU E^=
-O CU -P r-
CO J3 O E
•P O S- O
3 S- CD-i-
0 0. -P
CO O 03 'Z.
03 -r- •!-
CO • -r- -P ••-
•r- E O CO O.
> -r- CU 3 E
a.-o >,
-P OT tO E r—
O E T- O
CU -t- to
4J J^i CU E i- -^
O O -P O 03 S-
S- O -i- S- CU 03
Q- i— 0 <4- E D-
••
O 0 1 03
1 i— -P CU O S -P
Or— -P -i- CU -i-
S-OStOEtOt-EE
a. >, •!- 03 T- s-
O 03 -P -P 03 CU
CO -P T3 >> to O O.
+J t|- -i- E <*-
S- E O t- > O CU
O O OO -P S- O
Q.-I- E i— CU E S-
3 T- _J T3 i. M- T- O
C/> >U--r- CT>n3-P to
' ' •'-..'
<_J
1 -P
S- 3
CU -P
> •!—
•i- « 4->
E -E tO
23 03 E
" """*>
O M- O CM
03 O i- CO
jQ 03 CM
E >5 CU 1
CU -P to Q
CO -i— CU 1
S- co a£ >
— > 1 — 1
•p "03 *
•r- 0
•P i—
E 03
CU E
_ -P 0
x to «i—
co to
CJ C3>
tolo
C_3 d-
E
C'-r—
4J 4->
CO -03 E
CU > E CU
5- S- O Nl
O CU •!- T-
LU tO -P -P
E 03 r~- -r- CO
E o •!- cn t_> <— i
S- C_> O ft CM
CU O 1 "I
•P -O to Q Q-Q
CO E CO I El
CU 03 cC 2» 03 >
3 i — i S^ i— i
0-
^
S-
03
Q_
O
•r- E
0. 0
E *r~
r— tO If)
. O T- r-l
O CM
- 0 1
S- CO Q
CU CO 1
a >—i
-o
CU
E
O
o
47
-------
to
UJ
CO
UJ
00
48
-------
CO
LLJ
8
o
I
oo
UJ
49
-------
ai
cu
o
cu •
co -P
o
to ^;
•r—i — i rO
O i—i
-P t/j ro
ro ro -P
.£=•— -P
3 <_> rO.
•P O
E
CD CU
£ c" •
CU -P "O
•P S-
rC E O
+J O O
to S- CU
<(- S-
ro
CUi—
V) i— CO
CU -P S=
•P (/> O
•l— O 'r-
O O I/)
O rO
•r- 10 CD
£ CO 5-
O rC rC
§!•«-
o o o
T- (0
t- -P
t- Q> CO
0 +J
(U C
LO
00
C CT>
-a =s
4J CU
-a
tfl 3
•— ro
(0
T- oo
CU O
-a cu
-i- a
re
CR
(U
U)
(U
J- J_
(U
•»->
•P CU
O U
CO O
(O
CU O)
4-> tfl
o .a
CO
ui
o s-
2: o
o o
S--i-
Q.-P
(O
«=C £ •
CT> O d)
t£> -P C
«—) 3 O
rO N
C
o in s-
•r- -P CU
X
X
CU -r-
CO -G
•p J=
Q. O
C O
O S-
O QL.
a.
a.
o
CU
cu
CU
N
O I
•r- O
(O
to
q- •
3 O •
C O
ro to
s£
r— 00
ro to if)
O S- <-<
•i- CU I
£ 5- Q
CU 3 I
J= -P CQ
O fH
ro
S- r-H
cu i
o
ro
CU
CU «— 1
r-j i —
£= I
•
<_} i—i O i—i
o
cu
cu
00 CO
o i
cu
o
s- a
a>
LO
rO 1^-
rO I
CD M-
•r-
to i—
CU (O
O C_5
O O r-»
to f—
CU CU «—'
o: -P i
ro Q
S- -P I
•i- co :>
<=C 1-1
cu
o
50
-------
-------
co
in
re
in
•r-"
>•
re
cr
a>
s-
a>
•p
o
cu
E cn u
0 C S-
•i- 3
|C E O
,
t- Q> CO
O -P
QJ E
in
0.
1 J- J-
CU 3
•p TS
•P C,
CU (J
CO O
a.
-c
o 'si
Z 0
4.
(C
•P c
ex o
CD O
E 0
0 J-
o ex.
.
mmenter
o
1 o
o •
-P 0
E E fO
(O QJ f*
cu en •!-
JQ CO
0) t—
-a in re
3 res -P
O E
.E O OJ
to •«- -P
E 0
goo.
CD O CD
.E o .E
1
o '-pic .
E >,E S-
s- oj en
-O re$-O OJ
i~- E "*"• "P
3 T— E
0 S- E-.-
-E Q--r-
tn en res
OJ OJ E -P
*>* > |— • »p- (/)
1 reS O >>f-
u_ .E S-4- >
i
0
S-
(O CL CD C
S- 0
OJ ' cn o «r-
.0 in EM- -P
3 -r- cu re
•O O E J3 E
i — 'S- oj cn
3 O OJ to •!-
o cn s- to cn
.E't- O OJ OJ
co s- cn o -o
X
o o
*-
"™
cu
2 t. •
+3 OJ
OJ 3
Q_ OJ O
+J CL.
E 3 CO LO
res -P «d~ res LO
(_> .,— CM "O -P CM
•i- -P i T- ^: i
s- in o s- cno
OJ E 1 O T- 1
cr * i *•=» i • 1 ^>
i~" i i .— ^ i ^^ «^"^
CC t— ' U. i— i .
QJ
JQ
Q -a -a o
CO c— i r;
Q- 3 3 E
1 O O O •
1 _c J= E to
to to co o T-
Ei o to
re i cu >>
s- a. • i—
cnt— i -P E re
o co E re E
s- cu re
0.08.1- -P
o o -P
S- «-r- 3 O
cu co t- ~& re
^: o-M- E a.
-P CO 3 O E
o ^ tn o •!-
5- r— -P
i o to re E
aj •'-s re >> 5- to a>
s— re aj cn aj oj E
o E s- s- c o a.
t- re QJ T- s- o
CD E E 3 i—
i — cn • cu o a;
i — o co -a to >
•i- i— • O C CD CD
3 o :D-P re s- -o
,..,
X
o
n- O
CD ID
CM
CO i— i
s-
O 10
re
T3 i-
d fO
re
E i— i
M- to
O tO
re
CO r—
OJ O •
•r- T3
S-r— OJ
re re cn
T3 i- S-
E aj re
. 3T3 r—
O CD E
CD U- OJ
-
X
0 0
to
1- OJ
o o o
•r* ^—
+3 +j o
o a. to
OJ O) OJ
j *
LLJ
t— 1 -r— r—
i — to S- re * — *
re CM 3 s- co
S- 1 O 3 1
aj a to -P a
EI to re i
O3 i— i S "— «
-a
0)
E
O
O
52
-------
o
o
U-
o
C£
Secretary
Interior
State
1
I 3
>- t-
CO —
-P "O
•P CU
CO U
CQ 0
>-
Q.
• -o
CU
Nl
•P -i-
0 S-
IS O
_E
4-
rc
•P C
a. o
CO O
U ^-v
c o
0 S-
O Q.
•
S_
O)
•p
E
(
S
g=
i
3
O
3
bZ
CU •
E -P
CU O
S- (0
•P Q-
CU O
_Q -r;
t^J CD
3 O
0 0
S CU
T3
1 1 i —
1 CU -P E E 3 Q
CU "O E O *r- O CO •
S- CO -r- O D- to
"O O f* O CU rO ro ^> CU
i r- O CO E S- 4-> ra O
3S-i — i — CD to i — O
O-P (DCU1)- CU'r- CO S-
1
§ 1 E
-a cu ••-
•r- -P
O-t- ra
•P 4->
TD CO T- •
CU E > CU
CO S-
^-ro-p5
O-r- S- 3
^ -P COIJ-
X
o
o
•£•
•P :
O
CU •
r— O
UJCJ
n3 S- OJ
•i- cu r-»
E S CM
•r- O 1
cna. Q
t- 1
•r-o8 >
ro
3-
•
(/)
•r^
1/5
'(O CU
o£
E CU
0 Q-
0 -P
0 O
•p >1
o s: s^ "^ 'c •
CO U- Q- -P CU O "O
CU O> 5- ±J 5 „.
4^ S CO (O O CU
x o > tJ-^-S
uj o. o oo i/> -P
1 O rO
31 rO -P
o ja i cu to
O 3 CU ••-
•O tO r— J- >
• CO 3 O
0) -P CO -0 S-M- r—
0 O > JO
E E -i- "O r— CD S-
ro -P r— ro E. CD
-O -P E 3 E -r- CU
•r- E rO 0 S- ^^ -P
3 CO -P -E O ra E
O E 10 tO M- E T-
X X
r_> c_)
^
(j
«C oo E en
o_ r-^ i— i r*.
U_ CM ^CM
^— ' ^^ ^^^
*" e=I! 1
("1 "^» ^* ^>
eC>-< O-1
S- •
o s:
.E _1
•p u_
3
CO CO
jr -P
o
3 O
E -P
§4^
1— -r-
X
C_J
'ra E
O O
O -i—
i— CO O
ro -i- OO
E OCM
O O 1
•r- tO O
4-> tO 1
03 -=t :=>
^ HH
CO
CO
to •
CO 1—
O Qi
CU «C
E CD
CO 4-
.0, 0
4-> CU
O (ft
E 3
CO
>> O
ro O>
O CU
•i- -0 ra
4-> i r- CU
Identlfica
of Integra
Yista outs
Federal ar
X
o
o
- .
_Q 0
3 0
Q- to
to
E
< HH
/
O
O-
Q.
cO
4-> •
O OJ
E 4J
rO
u_ a.
-a
cu
•p
E
O
O
53
-------
CO
c:
to
ro
to
•r-
>
rO
CT
0)
•P
S-
cu
.c
•P
o
CU
C CO O
O C J-
•t- 3
ceo
CD c: to
3 "o. CO
CO C
<*— •
o to
>
£-t- cu
ro O -P
•P -I- CO
0) S- -P
i- CD co
u .p
CU C
CO t-4
to
CU
i- S~
CU :3
•P OJ
CU U
CO 0
J_
Q.
•o
CU
IN
o's-
^J
re
•p c
Q. 0
CU O
o •*>>.
c o
0 S-
ommenter:
o
1 O
i"t
a. ro
0-1—
tO 3
CD
•P CU
•i— S-
• e\\
UJ
*"" -p
_ t.
rs o
CO ^3
^^ 40
UJ O
I 31 ™
4-3 CU CO C CO
(d i c o (O co
coM-43s-s-i— w
(rt ^3 ^3 ""p™ QJ QJ ^^ fO
1 C^ lr 1 ^ -1_^ ^^ g
eCCDOOS-S-OcO
Q. E «r- CO 3 3 S-
CU
5 >,£
U_ -P CU
•i- -a
CD S- CU
E O U- •
•i— JE 1 *"C3
> -P E E
•r- 3 O CO
CD, CO E i—
X X
O CJ
0 O
5™" c
-P +J a.
O 0 O
CU CU O
t— CT> i— CJ CM
UJ CO UJ CT*
CM S- CM
CO 1 E O) 1
«-"~» -r- 3; o
El CO O 1
rO> CO Q- >•
^— »— i CO »— <
1
r— *r-
rO CO
O T-
•r- > 10
.E E
Q. CU O
. ro .E •!-
S- -P -P
CD CO
O t- i —
CU 0 3'
CD CD
E CU
i— O J—
3 -i—
t- -P >,
"S E -P
CO cu .a.
X X
0 0
-a
r— CU
CO -r-
E ^P
O -E
•r- t5
CD ••-
CU Ct£
•— ^H 0 >>O
E ••- i-H -i- E <-i
S- O CO -P ro OO
CU E 1 E Q- 1
•P 3 Q CO E O
CO O I i — O 1
cu cj >• -P cj •=>
"3 •— ' ^C I-H
CO ~O
O CU
s- -a
3
0 1}
S- E
•P CU
co JD
-0 -P
0
CU E
'•Pi—
•i- 3
CD O
3 J=
U- tO
S- CU
o o
^i^ CZ
O CO
cu o o -o
E -P S -r- •
CO 3 E
S- to CD CU
-r~ -P s-.-t-
CU • S— CO* CD
E o o a>
•1— • jE r— CO
1— 1— 1 CO O •!-
CJ
o
CU
1^
LU
CO
CO
CD
CM
0 r-H
•r- OO
q- i
•r- Q
U 1
rO >•
O_ I — i
0 -P
CU CO E
•""* *^ ^> ^ •
.E ••- 5- 0.
cu o
-0 S- Ei—
i— O CU CU
3-r-J >
O CO E CU
O E OtJ
1 S-
CU CU
to CU 3
> o
*4— *r~ Q
o cn
CO E O •
-a o 3S
0 -r- E-J
J= -P U-
-P O O
CU CU O O
S i— -P -P
ja o.
c— CU
CO T3 to
S- i— 1
cn 3 o cu
CU 0 -Pi—
•p j--; 3
E to -P 1- •
•i- Ci CD
CO CU CU E
_E -P •!-•> -P •!-
O to .Q CO ^^
ro -r- 3 S- ro
UJ > co ro E
X
CJ-
ro E
o o
O •!-
-p
i— CO CO
CO •!— t-H
E 0 CO
O O 1
•r- to Q
•P to i
coca: >
""Z I-H
5
•„
'-cT
CU
E
'•p
E
o
o
" *
54
-------
00
f—
LU
O
O
o
>-
ra
s-
CD
•P
CO
CO
1 . 1
s_
O)
1 ^
^-^
_
CO
C 0) U
0 C S-
•i- 3
ceo
co c: in
•a (a
3 O. CO
CQ a
"" •
Secretary
Interior v
State
tn
CO
J- i.
0). 3
•P T3
•P CU
cu u
CO O
f-
O-
•o
N
o s-
z: o
-p
3
(0
•P C
D. 0
CO 0
C O
0 J-
o a.
t.
U
1
0
o
*t— •^-
•i- c:
1 *•— ^ 3
to E
3 O ~O * — **
OS- CO i— •
E T- C i — LO
S_ > • O rO CO
O C (O O- (T>
C Q) & -P -P i-H
CO CO c/1 (8
-Or- O "
co c: J3 o-~o <— i
in fO O CO co
3 S- CO -P
(O O Q. J2 C S-
O -i- CO CO
Ei— -o E-a
•o o , •.
OT3 *C
-E CO O
10 -P
O CO
CO CO -P
-Pr— CO
•r- CO -P
CO t/) CO
"O 'r—
t—
3 CO
0-P
-C n3 C
t/5 Q- O •
•r- -i— tO
o o -P to
•1-T- O 0)
i— -P CO O
J3 S- r— O
,3 »O CO S-
D_ Q- CO Q-
<_> d-
1
CO CO
o3 > -P
S- i— JO-
Q. CO (O -P
, — to £- co •
31 " C 3
D- O -P •> •
o (C to " CO -P 0£ O >
CQ i — I Q ' — 1
CO •
CO O
-a o
i— CU
3 i —
O CO
to
a>
2: -p
_J T-
U_ (O
X X
o o
O-
o
o
_c •* -to
O CM -=C CO
-P CO -CO
(O 1 CD 1
r— f — * • *""*
-PI CO 1
0 >• • >
O« i — I ZD • — '
-a
r—
3
O CO
.n: to •!—
S- -P
fO CO O
D- o res
• *> CO
•P S- >
(O CO
•p -I-
0 0
CO
r~ A
UJ *• *
o •* - — •*
03 S- CO S- CO
E CO 1 CO 1
O S Q "O CD
-P 0 1 C 1
O Q- > 3 >
Q. t — > CQ > — t
CO
'o
-
.
:
-a
co
3
•P
O
o
55
-------
to
m
to
•p™
2
c
CU
4J
CO
•!- (0
0) S- 4->
t- CO CO
U 4->
CU E
LO t-H
to
Q)
i. S-
0) 3
4-> TJ
4-> CU
CU U
CO O
s_
D.
T3
CU
N
4-5 •!-
0 i-
"3Z. O
n
* *
4-> E
Q. 0
CU O
U ^v.
E 0
0 S-
o a.
jmmenter:
o
CO
E
O-r-
O
CU O •
coi — as
o cu
a-cu s_
o-a as
S--P-
Q.CO i —
4-> at
T3 3 S-
i— 0 CU
3 -a
o cu cu
jc-a u_
CO 3
r— O
CC O 4->
0- E E
LJJ'I- •!-
CU
at
E
"O cu •
i— 4-* E
3-I-.O
O tO -r-
tOi— 0
at cu
— !•!— CU
•a i
t— 1 • *£
Economics & Energy shou'
not be considered. Pro
tect vistas outside lool
ing in Federal areas.
•
i E at
gat 4->
to 1— to
Q. co -I— o at
3 .|E ,/> s-
cu >»r— cu at
EM- as •!-
•r- S- i- r—
CL4-> co at as
O E CUT3 S-
CO T3 E 3 TD
•r- T- 0 CU
-a = .a LL.
3 -O CO CO 1— 1
o as ~a
U co E to
4-> at cu to
S O CO 4-> OS
_J CU S- X r—
U- -r-J OS LU CO
01 •
•r- >> E to
N CO CU CU
•r- S- E 3
-a cu Q.
S- E 0 CU
as cu i— -E
CX CU 4->
O 3 >
CU CU CU E
"-3 E -Q T-
40 .
O CU
E 4-*
T3 tO
°!*~>
E
S CU .
U_ T- '_
Out-in in addition to
in-out. Energy and
economic consideration
second priority.
CU S- CO
> >> O i—
as 4-> s: o
^" •!*-• S-
•O -i- • CU
i— JD CU >
3 -r- E •!-
o to -r- co
J= E E to
to o s- cu
0. CU S-
s: to 4-> co
_j cu cu co
u_ s- "a at
0.
w
as
E 0
oS CO LO
IM CO-
CO T— 1
•i—4-^ C3
>•!— 1
Q 1-1
O_
CU
N
• p—
£
•r-
O
CO
•>LO
t— co
CU 1
^. o
O 1
* • 1 '
-
X X
o o
o
o
cu
O r—
•i- o at E
> -a oo
s- as o -1-
CU S- 4-i
CO O r— Oi
P— to at •!"•
O O CM E O IO
•r- O 1 O O 1
i — U_ «i— to U-
j3 q_ i 4-> to i
3 O > OS >=C S>
Q. I— 1 ^ 1— 1
X
O D-
O
O
to
o3 co
O ^
•r- tO
S_ ^ E
4-> S- O
o at •! —
CU • Q- 4->
r^ O *&
LU c_> o < — > r~-
cy> at S- r-.
C S- CM E CU CM
o cu i o co i
O 3 Q v- E O
CO O 1 4-> O 1
3 Q- > at 0 >•
^— i— i 'ZZ. •— i
X
0
,,_
o
CO
0 CU
04->
CO CO
"at
E CU
04->
•r- at
4J4-J
at to
LO
u_
1
-o
CD
3
E
O
O
56
-------
-o
,
;l
'••
},
I r
'•' OJ
:, T3
i °
j
;
1
i! C D5 U
! O C S-
! ••- =J
1 C C O
• O) C CO
'•o ro
J- i— 3;
i 3 Q. CD
ica c
j O CO
fc't. 0»
s- -P
• j s- o> co
U -P
CO (DC
H- !co i— i
Z CO 1
UJ (0 i
s: -P • •[__
S- «n '
0
C_3 > CO
1 0)
U_ r— S- S-
o re - en -P CD
OS 0) CD O
o
U ^v.
c: o
i O S-
| C_> D_
-)
i I
. •
1,
il ^
S-
CB CO
C7)-r-
CD
S- CO
(O
c- .p
-P CO
•r" •(""
S >
>>•—
O (O
•r- S-
•— C7)
O CD •
Q.-P -0
C CD
CD •!- T3
S- CD
0 O CD
s: -P c
•P
Q.
CO CD
n3 O
-P C
CO O O
•r- O CO
> r—
CO (O
CD -P
> S- C
o o ••-
S- Q. 1
Q. 0. -P
E 3 3
i— i CO O
I
•-.-", x
I *
CD -P
-a s=
•i- CD
3 e
en 3
O
£_§
o
Q- CD
Q. c
3 «r~
CO r—
D_
I
-P
CJ
s- en
CD <— '
CQ
-i•
C/5 i— i
n D_ Q- O-
j-
O) -r- (O
N C (0 C
•r- CD -P O
•P N . C N
.,- -p- 3 v- .a
C_3 -P O S- 3
.j ;gr cC i —
« CJl C_3
O i— I CD O CO C CM
E en "CO T3 r~- s- cnco
•r— ,— 1 S-rH (C<— 1 CD C i— «
&-. | CD 1 ^- jQ I -E •!— 1
CD Q NX rS o 3 Q -P ->^ C2
c > fO> o<->> oic>
eCh-i 3i—< O i— < CO i— i
o_ o_ a. a. o.
CD
N
C C '-P
E c CD CD T-
O) CD N N O
•£! -i- -P -P "
•P- -r- O C-> r—
0 0 „ Q E C3 CDQ S- Q C C3
fO 1 31 S- 1 S- 1 « '
^ ^"•":" ^"^ "sS coS
in i— i- o >-«
-a
CD
C
•r—
•P
i
o
57
-------
CU
cu
CO)0
O C J-
•i— ZJ
ceo
CU C
•a ca
J_ r—
Q. CU
o to
10
ro
s- cu
ro o -P
•P •r-" nj
a) £- -P
S- CU tO
U -P
CU C
t/> I-H
re
0
CU
CU
s- s-
O) =>
•P -o
-(-> CU
a) u
CO O
CO
LU
OQ
4J T-
O 5-
-P C
Q. O
03 O
O \
C O
o s-
Q_
0)
N
•M
(/) O
ro aj
E O
O E
•i- n3
4J S-
(C 3
O)
o
>,»-< o
•»-> in
S- CU I
i
N a
CU
o a> oo
c N LO
c -r- i
O 4-> Q
O ••- I
O CJ >•
+J LO
I — I
•r- Q
res :
CU
•r- ID
CJ LO
"Q
3 i
O)
a>
N
en
3 r>-
O LO
S- I
_a a
S- I
n3 :
0)
o
CU
N
S- 10
CU I
i—i ^z >—< >-1—i
(O
CD i
CU
ca i
•r- >
O i—i
CU
o
58
-------
l;
1
i: s-
'• CU
' JTT
\\ *4-3
; o
;!
i
j
!
i ""
ii
o>
C CJ! U
0 C S-
j| • -r- 3
ic E o
i cu c in
I
I-
1
^3 (T3
J- r— 5
3 C. CU
33 C
ii • ~
4- •
j O CO
S- S- 0)
i
ft5 O -P
I-P v- CD
' CU J- -P
! S- O> CO
1
0 -P
co • i cu c
r- |CO H-l
21 "* ' 1
UJ rg
•gr [ ^
;>" to
O 'I- 1
0 >
U_ i —
J_
>- 05
rv Q>
u
EC O
^ —
-a
cu
tsl
0 £
1
re
-P E
a. o
O) O
U sv.
c o
0 J-
(
G.
4-
'
CU
E -Q
rO
i — CO ~O
CL CUr-
cu cu
1 ^_ ^-^
CO 1J— 13 fO
i- S- S-
rtS S- CD CU
cu cu cu q-
>,+j 4J QJ
q- c s-
-a i cu -P
CO CO £= C "O C
CU >> E CU S*. CO
-a S- cu to CD Q..C: cu cu
r-CUCO-PS-0-P-P-P
3>S-OCUi — torC
OCUCUfOCCUCCU-P
O CO > Q-CU>T-3C^)
(O •
S-TD
a) a;
cu >
-P O
S— £Z
•t- CU
0 CU
-P J3
co -a
CU i —
Eg
CU -E
S- CO
a>
q- =
cu to
S- ro
•p
I — CO
r— »r~
=i >
— —
~~
X
Q. Q- 0.0 n.
cu
^ «* QJ •* •»""
5-i— 1 C 1 CU CD 1 C
> , S- -i- 1 CU 1 (O S- 1 O
Oil — i CQ i — I CQ I— i CO i— i h—
to
O -i-
•4-* •
to q- c
S- -i- O
<0 -P i—
CU E
>> a> o
Ln."?^
X
CJ)
1
o
•r~*
•p
CO
» cu t^-
ID E -r- OO
CO rO q- CM
Q Q. O O'
1 ro -i- 1
> ^ C£>
1— i O i— I
1
0
CO
cu
o
s_
cu
to co
X CO
cu cu
1— •!- O
•P OO
«•!— OO
S- t— -I
ro ••- O Q
j*: -p E i
1 1 1— (
.
•
-o
cu
13
•p
0
o
59
-------
T-
CO S-
t- O
CJ -P
CO C
l/l M
ro
UJ
1
ra
4->
W
LL. i—
CO
Ul
CO
o $-
z: o
Q. O
QJ "
O'
C O
O I-
ta
CD
-P C
(d fO O (B
O) 0) E
>
O -P O S-
^1 3^= O O
co o co -P -P
a>
>
cu
O)
to o
> c
CU -S
3 O
S- i— i—
r- (C
03 O.
O
(O •
•a o. c
CU -r- r— ••-
-P to - - -
•»-> CU
CJ TD
Q- O
3 CU .
o -a
co to
(O S-
-a cu
-
(C CU
•r- t/> t/5
t/1 c/) n3
+^ (T3 CU
3 i— S-
o o ta
CJ>
to
(O
2: o
CM
» S- CM
g CU I
•i- O I
s- a. >•
•»-> o
o
cu •
S- 4->
•r- CL
a cu
CU M- t/5 CM
C «r- CU 1
O r— S- Q
CO u_
O)
_
•=c
CD >>Q.
C 4J U.
•r- -r- z: co
, — to i— i LI-
CU 3 a. i
cu
N
•r- CO
o «*
CM
" I
-a Q
cu >•
D; HH
-P LO
r— CM
ra O
CU I
cu
N
«to
•a •*
c co
-------
-p
o
to
^—
uu
o
O
-o
CU .
•P l/l
CU C
i— O
0) -r-
,
CO 3 J3
10
4-*
in
O)
•(->
cu
O)
Q
nj
tn
>
re
CT
o>
I
co
CQ
0)
C O> U
O C l-
•r- 3
CCO
cu c in
•o m
s_ i— as
3 Q. O)
,ca c
o 10
.
« O -P
4-> -I- fO
3
-p -a
•P CU
o u
CD O
a.
-a
cu
N
•P -r-
o s_
•z. o
i cn
•i- C
E cu
•r- N
O
ra
cu
-P
' 3 C
M-
O
co i— ^:
Q. tO « -P
CU "O CU CU CU CU
CLC -P C 3 -P
3 O T- O T-
o3 JC CL E Q. to
r— >
(O
O
o
CU
£= •—
CU O
•P i— (O
to "O to CU
CU E .£= S-
3 to t/) re
0
=
O
(A O
W) -P
cu
S-«=C 10
cna^ re
c 10 cu
O t— « S-
ocan o
I— >—i U_
» f"-.
S- OJ
CU I
-P
cu
•P
to
o
to
•I—
s-
to i
o u_
S- I
CQ >•
o
o
CD
CO
(O
o
rci
o
cu
O
S-
cu
I
•p tou.
3 re
o
CO
•a
cu
o
o
61
-------
-o
S
S'S
i j=
4->
~
10
* •
^J 1
Q. o
*
0 HH
X
o
Weyerhaeuser
IV-D-265
^j
•r-
CO
CU
s-
en
to
CO
Q
0 0
g
o
o
+J
O)
S-
O-
S-
O)
•«->
•^
3 -a
i — OQ
£ • ^=£0
OJ, -I-*. S- .
CO (O -I- E
n3 f~ CU LO
CM E 0) CM
CO 1 0 -P C 1
ns ca s 0 CO 4-> >
J— i— i O >-«
X
0
•!-> O
CO O
CU CO
S- CO
^^ ^^*
California Fc
Protective /
IV-D-293
Q_
QJ
Nl
•r-
O) CM
E Ll-
CU 1
3 >•
CD i— i
Q-
tt)
IM
'•P
•r-
o r--
CO
«> 1—1
co i
0) Q
E 1
O >
•~D I — '
a.
0)
N
'•P
0
CO
O) CO
CD 1
0 >
s: 1-1
•
\
°-
c
CU
-
•t-)
•r- LO
o -3-
co
CU Q
•)-» 1
(O >•
CJ) i— I
(continued)
62
-------
1—
"Z. in
LLJ ro
S -P
s:
O •'-
0 >
U_ f-
o ro
t-
>- 01
rv Q)
tO
•
CO
1 1 1
_I
t—
.
t-
OJ
+1
o
-
03 C
——————
D in
Secretary
Interior '
State
in
HI
S- i.
0) -3
-P T3
-P OU
OJ U
CD O
l~
Q.
T3
OJ
N
0 '£
2: o
to
-P C
Q. 0
O) O
0 \
C 0
0 i-
s.
a
•t-
£
0
c
e
-
OJ 1
s- s- .,
a> t:
-0 -P ? -0 .
^-g S^CM
0 • i Q U- 3
,
X X X X X X
o-c^o oo o oo-o
o QJ
C w "C " OJ
= Ss ef O . r~"
i— OJ Cn •=*• JJ r— -I—
OJ M OJ . ,_ 0 T- -P
N Ir~ i; • r-n CO O .P7 ' c S- Q)
,4J'I~-O .S 0 M-O H-
o 4JLrjiScr>c«3E:l0
I "CO oTco ^ S ^^ 'ES3 Ss-c^l i-e^l ^OJCM S^CM
» QJ1 CL)I O*I 1 "^ JL n» *-, f-N *« r~> (X3 Q ^- ^^Q
- ~S Q O) Q O "O Q ~O C^ CT)LJ vU J-i-i— i vi i— i ^ . QJ q_ |
"•5"
OJ
£-
c
0
63
-------
CO
LU
-------
co
o
CJ
u_
o
1
CO
LU
_!
CO
«=c
-------
LLJ
If)
«O
•P
in
2
a
O)
•p
-a
S- I 1 CO
CO i — CO 'CO
_E to s- to z:
•P J3 fO >,
S-
a>
x:
o
0)
E CO U
0 E S_
E "E o
CU E (A
T3 «O
I- r— S
3 a. eu
CQ E
<*- .
o «/>
S- S- CU
(0 0 -P
•P «r— ttJ
CU S- -P
s- ou co
0 -P
0) C.
CO t-H
to
CU
i. S~
01 3
•P -0
.p CO
at u
CQ 0
0.
~
U
43 £
0 S-
2: o
JC
"t
w
R}
• *
•P E
CL 0
CU O
U V.
E O
0 S-
O Q.
• *
S-
a
c
o
o
CU -E -P tO
<— • £_ 4_) (/) • -^J
% O "f~" *r"~ *P
M- 3 > E O
•P fO CT>
3 to to r- -P
O CO S- fO S-
J3 T3 O S- O •
fO T- -P O> Q. O
> O CU E to
to 0 fO -P T- i—
E S- t- E tO
o n. T- co
'•r- M- S- E
•Pi — O O lO -i—
fO lO -P 1
> tO O5 tO O
CU Q-'t- O -P 1
to o o co to -p
CO S- E Q.T- 3
C"
0
•p
to •
O CU
•r- -P
Cf— ro
•r~ 13
4-> C3-
E CU
CU TD
"O tO
"r~ r^
•t—
i
E
O
r^-P
«C fO
+J
o s: Q.
E —1 O
11 , —
CU CU E •
E > 3 CU
X X •!— • CU O O
CU CU S- to
"O "O r" *r~ "O
•i— CU r— CU «r-
3 CU -r- -E 3
+> 1 i—
S_ •— 0 tO
O to S- S-
D- C3^ Q. D>
O. CU CU
= n- S--P
tO P E
X CU M- •!-
i — -i— co en •
en E to E to
C fO Br- •! — fO
0 X E -P -P
S- CU CU O to
•P CO S- CO T-
co Qi O.-P >
-a >, to .«s
cu «F -P i • i co
CO -r- (A) CU :;CO r—
E -P «r- -O O O
C > «r- 'O
CO CO 3 ^--."P
•C- T- tO , E
.p ••- CO -- • .
O r— C/> ' • *"
CO -P -r- CU CU' "
s- -a > E s-
o -a E cu -r- 3
s: cu to Q; i — "0
" • - •
X
Q. Q. O
w
CU
M — O
o s-
3 CU -P
• O J= S-
•P tO -P fO
CX CO 3C
cu o;
tO 3 1 E -P I tO 1 1
•P-PQ CD S- Q r—Q Q
E fO 1 T- fO 1 r— 1 HH 1
oz:> S-LU>- o>- o>
s: »— i u_ i— i DI>-I Q i— i
tO •£/)
1— ' H"
to to
•r— «r—
r~~ P—
n- r—
•i— -r-
3 3
o3 t— 1 oS O
ECM EOO
O 1 O 1
•pa -pa
El El
3 >• 3 >
3: I— i 31 i— I
-a
co
3
E
O
O
66
-------
to
UJ
o
C9
in
as
(SI
•r-
>
as
a
I
C
o
c
cu
-o
S-
3
CO
l_.
4-
0
£?
(0
4J
cu
S_
U
0)
CO
5-
cu
.e
o
cu
O) U
C i.
•r- 3
C O
c in
re
•— 5
O. CU
c
If)
S- CU
0 4->
•r- 0}
S- 4->
S-. S-
"O
4-> CU
CU U
CQ O
s-
Q
Judgement of vistas should
depend on preservation of
resources rather than energy
1 •
or economic consideration.
4->
c
cu
-o
•r—
O •
4J .C
en
T3 3
O O
•r- C
i- CU
CU
Q. CD
>5 0
tO r—
73
0 O
cr> c
Judgement on vistas should
depend on preservation of
resources rather than energy
or economic considerations.
c
ai
(U E
.n o
o
-o
r— O
3 T-
Or—
(/) 3
Q.
cn
•r- O
4-> CU
c •<-)-•
CU -Q
-0 3
l— l tO
•
l ~~1
•a
O)
N
40 .,-
o s-
z o
4^ C
O. 0
0> 0
c"o
§ 2
o o_
•
D-
s-
fO
4-5
I/)
CD
C.
"^
s-
o
J= CO
CO ^d"
S- 1
O Q
-d 1
CU >
Q i— i
D-
^T
C/l
• [—•
>>•*
CU 1
c o
-a i
OO l— i
a. a.
"
N CD
to cu
i- J3
I 1 ,. —
Ul_ »f—
Lf> 1 — CT>
4-> LO CO
S- 1 C 1
5? "S3
CU HH S^ 1 — 1
a. D-
^.
to
"° ?^>
Q S-
i- t— i
to un Q
tO I S- 1
S- > CU =>
Ll_ 1— 1 CQ >— 1
0
o
0
in
to
(/>
QJ ^~
t- ^D
O T-
U_ 4-> t£3
o r — •
c: cu «-i
CD O Q
cu s- i
s- a- >
O i-«
67
-------
cu
cu
CO
in
0)
cr
a>
t
cs
o
in
CO
ui
s
"
1
i
! t-
i CU
> -C
!" o
!'
i
U
.1
i! _^
r cu
1 '>
1 CO
! (-
1
i o
XJ
o
J_
(/I
CD
*-<
>-
—
C
CO
3
a
"Z.
•r*
4-
to
•i—
X
J
4J E
a. o
cu o
u ^
E O
0 t-
O Q.
Comnienter:
4-> to Ei—
10 r— ••- 3
4-3 CU I/I
CO -O 4-i E
§o o
s= o
-CJ-O-0
O "O 4J~O
§£ -S«nSs
•O CU •!— to to — 1
•r- 4— t— CD 4J U-
3 If- tO S- CO
CT° >EIS^$ :
££ =ic3£3
o to
4"> 1= >->
£>££
E 3 r—
O r— -r—
^"O v-
i— Q. to •
a. T-4J
Q.TD > E
to cu cu
4-> en E
-O • ,
X CU to
CU i- 4J
to o cu >>
•r-4J EJD
to cu
>> cu s--o
i — O T- CU
03 S- 3T3
E 3 CTE •
to o cu cu co
CU CO t- 4-^ CO
S- E CU
tO 4-» •[— S-
I — cu -r- en
«=c o o o o
ca Q. s-s: o
cj> o o_
o
tcu >»
S'~> o to
•i- a.
D- i— E
O J3 O
E S- =J «->
1-1 S **- „< m
o> >t — cu co
«»CM "r- VO to O O>
O CO O£ CM E -i— CM
O 1 1 O > 1
tOCl 4^>Q N S- Q
XI r- I -r- CU 1
cu > to ^» S- co >
(— H- 1 CO 1— < — «
3
•
c/l QJ
cu >
CU 4->
M-i tO
S- en
cu o
4-> S-
cx
•^ cu
"O fO
E 4J
=3 CO
<
cu
>
•r™
cu
o
X
cu
pi
cu
cu
to
to
^)
CO
,
S-
^M-
4-> O
to to
4-> tO
0 >>
E i—
to
CO E
cu to
o cu
-a s- .
1—
4-> CU C£~
O N «=C
«sC -r- ca
o
0
E cy>
i — i r^
CM
Xd
Js
1
o o cu en to
O O 3
4-> S- 3 1 «i— 4->
4-> CU O CU -i—
^~ co ^>^~^ 3
S- <*- Q.CU
•r- cu en o E
fO E to S- O
E 0 4->
3 4-* tO CU CO O
•r- > E
to S- X CUCM 3
•i- CU CU IQ T->
T3 S- E
4-> -r- E O « O
i— i to to- — »r^ o
CU t— 1
to 3 E
3 O O
to 3 O
O E
CU CU 3
o o
s- -a
1— 3 E •
CC O fO i—
S- -r-
O M- CU 4->
U- O XI to
0
o
•i- CU
O •!-
CU 4->
i— tO CvJ
ui s- en
CU CM
E Cu 1
•r~ O *""*
CO O 1
to o >•
ca i— i
c^
to
E -a
o cu
'43 ^
tO 3
*3 CO
en
cu cu
s- .a
fll "O
cu^
•t«a "^
•I™ _J
4J 0
E -E
LU CO
to
S-
>>
in
°
co
o
^" .
^~
'
cu
en
E
to
.E
0
•
cu
0
S-
3
o
to
3 '• ' • '
£
O_ D_
OPS
to
to
O3
o o
to ui >
^Ol—l CO 1— I
(continued)
68
-------
CO
I—
LJJ
s:
o
co
LO
CO
UJ
a>
O)
CD
fO
OO
01
,05
c
o
i
Other
Regulations must in-
clude required improve-
ments in visibility.
Concurrence of FLM
should be required on
any SIP revision.
S- 1
0 M- •—
M- •.- i —
S O CU
'<: CD -o • CU 3
ii -r- to CU -t-> O-
> E 3 O to t/)
i) CU O CU *O O3
J_ -t- -i- Q. O)
t/} > E "O I/) OJ
i U -r- O) •>- 3 CU i —
1 T- > S- . i— > 3
•O CU >•> O •!- T3
O i- CU '-t-1 E 4^ 0}
•r- .O -I- ••- O -E
J_ 0- r— CD O
O. CO r— .S i— -Q
3 -i- 3 0 fO
! r- O tO O
1 i — .E -i— .E O tO
i tO •!— fO
| W
U
^
S c
1 w
z
[
c
CO
"x
LL
i
U c
CL 0
a) c_)
U ^ Q_
E O
! o s-
i
£
2 cu
•r- O
• > -i—
E >
i uj s-
fe ^
OJ tO
•j± i
|i g 4-> E U-
1; = 3 cu i
i 0 o E >
«-J co •— i
J= O)
0 35-
Should reformulate the
basic long-term approai
from a deterministic,
model oriented techniq
to statistical, visito
related perspective.
ID
(8 >> •
-t-> 3 O»
O CO 3
'«3= 0 E
.'• '+-> o
p
eC (O to
Q- O) O
UJ >> O
D- n_
n7 "^*
O 03
D_ O.
-o o
E O
0 •!->
CO JC
CO i en i
ua > 3 o3 5^
3 HH Q. 1-"
s_
OJ
E "O
a)
<3J "O "O
S- E 3
n3 fl3 i —
i— O
-P i 1- to
E n3 to
O) S- CU CD
E
a- Q-
L
E • 3
<4- O CO O
o s- oo
CO CO
3 CD 1 (O T3 I
cn4-> Q -t-> >• O CO >
_i I-H s: H-I
VJ
CO
"
" Ul
. *T
•t™* *D
O 0)
E >,
O CU .
•r-* >
CU M—
en
E E
n3 CO
0 -»->
a.
S-
0 M-
•)-> 0
0
•i— D. -a
Q a) QJ
c0..^ =
CU <^ to CM 'Jj
E -r- CU 1 c
0 t— S- Q o
to n3 O 1 o
CU O U, > — ,
0 1— 1
69
-------
1
E
!
J-
CU
J=
**
O
j
0
o
o
0)
to
t_
Q.
Q.
CO
E
•i—
E
o>
S-
CO
(r—
.E
s_
(y
E
0
-a
O)
J3
o
^^
s-
o
*
E
•5
E
fO
4->
S-
a>
r~
3
O
•r~
ro
•
c~
O
'•fj
fO
-t-> •
E
i
X
d)
C|—
3
0
r—
r—
fO
O
4->
>^
H3
O
O
r—
i-
O)
T3
•i—
CO
c
o
O
O
-{->
.JJ5
Q. Q) .E -O CO T- ••—
(O
E
I— i
•o
•r™
CO
=5
^—
•r-
E
a.
to 10
£ &
UJ CT
I I
0 £
LU l/>
ce. at
i J^
CO
in
co
LU
x
LU
Q. O
QJ O
U\
c o
o t.
I O Q-
S-
OJ
•fj
o
I
o
C-r- CO
-
O i-i
CO
<-H
•poo
oa
a. i
o ro
res en
S- I
S- Q
a> i
Qt-i
70
-------
CO
t—
z:
UJ
o
o
o
E
5r— «U
o e
-P
in
0
o
in
in in
CO >,
Q£
in
c
1
•P > E •
in -P in o> • >»••- -P
CO (O -P O t/) (O E
S-CO-r-i— COEi— CO
. Q-1*- O > S E
-OCOOEOW)ECO
3 +J O CLi — E O
-------
CO
H-
z
LL!
O
O
•P 0
CO Q.
10
1
CU -P
> c
r-~ CU
O E
>
•p
c
o
i
i
p
ir
Jj
t!
i
i
*
$
i
i
it
»i
6
i
'.!
W
y/W
Q) >1
°g
D- «
O- ij
<^ rv
u^
CO
cr c
o u
y
4-> 3
U O
re in
Q.
H-t r~"
n
cr
C
•r-
•r—
1—
-P C
Q. O
0) O
C O
0 t-
U
cu
•p
c
c
£
CJ
4-Jx-^ to '— • » to-— ~E
O T— I CU Cncvl 3 OO •!—
s-cu-i- «< en «• M- -P
O)O>-PlO ECUO E
O
>r- > q- EEr-CnO
O Cn CU O O C£ M- T3 Q.
4-> -i- T- ttl
t/> M— t/1 >OQ CU to
o E i— = "a cu
cu co
•i-OO
1
•pa
rtJ >•
co i— i
1 1 O "O
to i— • -P E 1
•i— E CU-PE rBE-P
EOCUO-O-r-E OE
•P -P O CU -r- E E
O"OT-i--P-PS-toE3
3 CU O CU ••- E CT
•i— O -Q i — T- CU i —
+J E E " 3 to Q-r—
EO -P-C)OE>5, p
O-r- toOCU-EOES-S-
o to -r- eC r— co o (O o-P
1
•p 1
O -P 1 O C
E O 0) -P 0 •
CU T3 E 1 -i— -P
•a M- -r- cu cu -P to
^-M- >, s- to a. cu
1*^ Is III
COJ3 CUi — U- tOCU S-
CU 1 "O
0 •<- •— -P 3:
S- -P tO 3 O CU
3 en o T- o cu -i—
0 E E > .E -i-S >
(O *i~ to .Q CU
4J +J en 35-
cn-p E E <=3 to
E T- rtJ 'I- 1—
•r- E -P -P >> CU Qi
-P CU 3 O -P jQ eC
to t— CU -r- CQ
•I- -p I— tf- I— -p
X 0 0 <4- -i- O 0
uj E o. co .a E-P
-a
r- -a o i
3 CU -P -P CU -P •
o -a o s- c £
to cu o. >— S- E "31
E •— i -a cu ra cu CQ
tOrtJCOi — -ECUS-
- en 3 >>-r- s-
CU CU O O CU 3 O
Qi J3 10 3: J3 LO CTM-
CJ
o
•r- •
1 •
r*> o
3 CJ
O-
CU CO
n3 o cr>
E -r- CM
O > 1
N S- Q
•r- CU 1
s- oo >
e^ *-"•*
cu =
> en
CU E
•I— -r-
"aj cu •
^£3 II
-P (0 0
O M- O
E ~O O
CO (Or—
CU S-r-
o cn-r-
Q = 3
E
0
-P CL
3 CU tO
J3 > CU
tC S- •
i-P
QL. tO S- T-
UJ CU fO r—
-P E T-
•P (O-r- JD
0 -P S- -r-
z: co Q- to
; . ^
1 «/>•!-,
co o t— •
to o cu o
CU • E 'i—
0 CU 3: CU -P
X > O -d (O
i , i M
,
-------
S-
o>
I C/>
.0 O> C
3 E (O •
Q.T- -G to
,— -!-» +J
-00) S=
i— -O S- tO
3 -I- 0) i—
O 3 -C Q.
.£= O54->
t/) O S-
J= 0>
<: v> s- s
D- •!- O O
LU r— M- Q-
O
oo
O
CO
i
T3
a S- to £= S-
cu o q
T3 CU •!- -I-5 •
_Q -r- _Q -4-> CO >>
in •!- S- i —
-O C -O +J4-> 4-»
i — O i — O) Ul O
Z3 O 3 Q-T- CD
O O E S-
.E O -C O -r- -r-
CO -l-> CO •»-> £ T3
I CD
•i" r—
CD to _Q
•i— -i— O
-!-> > S-
Q.
O O
U.CQ
p I
'o
O X CD
•i—
t/j CD -I-5 CO
CD > S- -^
^D fO QJ ^O *^~
Q ^= O. E C
a>
o
o o -a en
_n aj S- to a> •
a. 3 ^= i— a»
•o o i—
i— H- S-
O tO S- -r- C£. fO
^: s- o .E £= «=C a>
tO Olt— 3 -r— CO >1
3
-a
C -i-
> s-
o o
O Q-CQ CD
CO- r-
-O O
^: o>
o o s
•i- fO I
C O >
o
o
«/5
t/1
a>
fO O
£=-r-
•I- >
o or >>
S-CO •!->
tO T- CM
O O S- CO
•r- O CM
4J Q
3331
oa.
CO i— I
•o
a>
o
o
73
-------
cu
UJ
CO
vo
oo
cu
CU i
cu
-P in
—i o e
u_ >
cu
Wl r—
o RJ
DL c
Q. (TJ
O O3
•r- T- O
T3 > S- -E
tO tO CQ
O
-
E -r-
cu
i— -P "O tO
O O CU E
S- Cn E -E O
E tO-r-
tO •!- tO -i- -P
- -p cu i— to
CU O O -£3i—
Q) to
> CU
(O i
O) S-
4-> 0)
4-> CU O t/> CU
CO CO CO CU S-
r— tO r—
3 E -r-
O mr- -Q
_E S- -r-
CO Q. (/)
i— CD
o CU (O CO
Q > O T-
E CU
-I- >
to
-r- res •
CU
J=. CU O
COJ3 >
, — 40 4-> O O-
O O CU X
+* cu
3 I
<4- C
CU tO
tO
CU
cn
CU-r- O I
cu to
N Oi— CU "O CU
Q.
CU D-
frt o ea
-I— T3 O
CT)i— <0 U
CU >s
cn s-
S- 4->
tO to
4-> 3
-a
cn c:
> s-
o o
to o
tO •!-
CU T-
i— ^—
O Q.
E CL
^D tO
CU
E CU to O
to E cn to
fO CU CU -r-
•i- 3 E
•r- E 4-»
ta 3
VO -^
O S- ••-
00 -r- •!->
• to in
t-i q- E
coo
o
cu i
S- E
.E 0.
CU
•(-> i—< E n3
E 00 O 3
o T- a-
E S- to CU
O -r- "O
C31 <+- > tO
o
O CU
o
• »r~
+i >
Q-i-
o> cu
ooo
LO
<=C "-<
CU
O (O
'C cu
•(-> Q-
o o
O) O
o
O OJ
CT>
S- CM
cn
cu
o:
: 10- r—
E CU
•r- S
to o
tO d.
CQ
cu
o 01
Q. CM
cu o
O i — t
s- o co
CU E I
4-> 3 Q
I/J O I
cu o >
cu
o
5
o o
•1— I—I
4-5 OO
ro
CU
74
-------
to
1
O)
•P
o
s
'l 1 •"—
1 cu i—
t/}
i—
"ZL
LU
s:
o
0
1 i rv
O C
2: i— cu
-JOE
LU >
CO
c
CJ
in
•r™
CO «
CU ^i
CO !—
o ^
Q. E
Q. re
0 £
in
E CU
O U
-P 3
U O
ro in
Q.
E r—
(0
CT
E
•i —
•r—
1—
-P E
Q. 0
CU O
O \
c o
0 i-
O Q-
<
•)
c_,
CO
(O >->
.E CU -P
-a cu si
r— r— O
3 Q..E
0 E -P
J= O 3
co o —
o
"O ^
r~~ E •
il E 1
E co
S _E -P*^ T3 « ° O ~O
> O -i— CU E -i— CU
•r- 3 S— O S~ t- O "P X *?••
C7^ E O ^" ar~ CU Br~ CJ. "r— O •
|||| |lf| E of
_ _ — —
O CO 1 E
v- -a co E o
CO r— CO O CO 1 "• — •
•r- 3 J2 O T- CU CO -P
O O S--E -P CO
CU-E CUE>
E CO CU i—i—>>
•r— C7> CO .O ' rt3 i— ~ •
(O r— CO (O E i— "O
"O O CO *r- *O <^ CO
i — CO i- E S- > E Q.
^: i— o -i- E co o.
oo o O-P re-r-tn o
E CO
O CO
re .
cu o - //
•o ^
•O'JD -^
"3 co cu
O CO CO
c~ re re
OO O J3
...
,
0
£?
•1-
merican Mir
Congress
V-D-229
eC •— *
0 Cl-
o3
c5 . o
1 4J CU
"• 0 Q. 0 CM
O ^ CU *- ^r
.,_ +J C\] Q CO. CM
"G §4 ^ § °
re^> ^°S
D. i— < rj i — i
Q- '
3
CU
O
•P
CU
n. cu
E 3 CO
to -P •*
O -I- CM
•1- -p 1
i- CO Q
CU E 1
e^ 1— H
'
.
(continued
75
-------
CU • •!-
t|- to tO
.r- -P >
C fO I— £=
CD O
rd
o: o
OO
O CX
E CO
-°x-
cu
Q.
J= 3 O
to o" cx
Q> r—
i- -t-
JO
OJ •!-
-p
to
o o s-
= -a -p -p o
t^ , *-| in *
CU 3 "O CU to
j= O CU -P h- CU
4J .£ -r- IO Di O
tO tO <4- -P •< S-
-o cu ~a
IO 3
s- to
CD
CO D3 3
O
•P in
o o.
i— O i—
• -O r—
CD i
= O J3 IO fO tO
O)
> c
i— O)
—JOE
t/1 "O
to o o to
C O C E
UJ
c: 4- to
o cu
c QJ
O (J
•*-> 3
u o
CO 10
a.
« ^^
cu
CD
S- o w) «£ 4->
O 4-> ,••-
-t-> to >
to to -r- c
OJ
CO
UJ
CO
o cu
J=-r- TD
•P to •
tO tO
in
c-
cu cu
to -a
T- 3 o t/i to
to E
O >i O >>
S- 0> S- -P
4-> O +J -r-
C i— C •—
O O O t-
CJ C O J3
cu
to 3
•r- 4J
IO
fecu
>=C S-
CQ O-
O) O I—
to -»->Q£
et
T3 O) CQ
*3 10 -P
O "O CU
oo to
cu
-p c
Q.
CU
o
O i-
O Q.
co
CO
to
CJ3-P Q
ai'i- i
to
to
CD
O CO
to CM
(O I
111 I—I
«=C CO
00 I
to
c to
cu x
E cu
it- O
CU
fO O I
cu ==• >
76
o
cu
o in
•i- CXI
tO
cu
•i- CO
•> Q
CO 1—1
cu
o
-------
-o
TD i—
O) 3 Q.
N O i-«
•i- i: co
s- co
CO
UJ
o
o
• >-
ce.
CQ
CO
UJ
CQ
r-
•P CO
re c
•p o
CO O.
CO
1
C 1
S r- 55
-JOE
u_ >
^
CO
O
o
CO
CO u
CO r—
§-£
Q. m
CD Q
cc
C'ft
(j
o u
-P 3
U 0
(0 CO
1— « r—
cn
C
•1—
•f-
1—
-P C
O. O
(U 0
U "v.
c o
0 S_
o o.
*
s-
Q
c
c
c
i °
c
0
•r—
CO
•r™
U
C O -P «O
-T-.E C 4->
U. CO 0) CO
c • •
o 3 0*0
O O-i- -C O CO)
a c co 4-> to j^ i—
o
•o
CD O O .
f~l . •r—
+» S- -
T3 - o
c S-
Q CO trt i— +»
ci. o o-
o i -2s
i -o u ^c
S_ S- 1- • g
O 0 30 O
3i— CO >>
O <0 CO 3
coco iccoin 252
S- T-I o S-i-l . C^1
OJ Q. I •!- O) 1 >- 1
-UOQ ES-Q 0)0
i—^: i a> 3 i > i
•t— in > jz. +> > o>
3 f-i CJ ' i— i CD 1-4
O CO • [I
.c • O
3 r«-> 4J >
^ _>> 0 OJ
c
o I!
fl) *r- , 1
^^ 4"^ II
eg li
i— c a> ^ "•" 9J "3 ."o
;c a> "o Q-I— "o -c o c :
co ja > o « > to c t-
11
II
.
1'
•
a> i
ox
5« c_
•i— -a £-
t— -a o
a> .„ ~t!
= g.5iS £0.0
£^M ** I-H .C
E to^ C
s- «o • , 2> •
o s- 5r £
• rj O dJ *o
ai ' "o o E" ^
01 «-> °- ,9 ~ §
° •* *" °° ,T a s- aiQ c
S- 1 -P Q. 1 0 T- 1 g
fl) >. 'r- CO > f"~ — • ^" »J^
77
-------
UJ
U.
o
CO
vo
I
CO
LU
CO
s-
O)
r-
O
4?
CU r—
£- T-
0
CU *r-
-P to
ro E
-P 0
CO Q.
1
E 1
•r* CU E'
51—' ta
lu. > ?
L
-p
V>
o
0
Opposes
eanalysis
C£.
c a
O U
£_
•P 3
U 0
(0 w
li ^ JZ
f.ta
-• O-
E
"i
•P E
a. o
CO O
u ^
E O
o s-
o a.
Commenter
1 S- 1
•r- CU -P Or—
c o cu cn-p cu
3 E E -r- "O
rB T— E O
E +•> cu >> o 2:
3 to -O r— S CU
E T- Q. -a -P -P
r- T3T3 Q. E O rB
X r— rB • 03 E 3
rB E 3 1— CT
E S- o S- ct: en o> cu
O.E o <=t E E -a
^^ t^- c/> M — ^"^ "r~ *r— IB
*j t
*•» .»r J"
.
. • .• ;- r
' - ., ,,.„,
S
•' „.
* .«"'
-.! •
, *•
c_>
>,
^
El
o
•p
^5
•r- O
>•!- 00
E S- LO
O-P CM
to o i
vx CU Ci
Or— t
fBLU >•
1-3 1-4
E
CU 1
.E- E
S E 0 >.
-a cu -P 4J
CU t3 T-
01 T3 CU r—
3 CU CU > T-
>, (O S- T-
• r— E S- D- to
O O to •!- >
'
•1
... t ;, •*"•:
,
^_j •
0
E r-
in o£ •
- T3 -P CU "=C 3
r— O O CQ CU
'. '3 'CU S- T-
'. •. Or- 3 S- >
.'-E.'CU O O CU
- co to to 1- s-
y-,J.,. . ,. ,, . . ...
O
o cu
"^"^M-r- •
•r- E >> 0 '<8 3
>, S- 0 CU. -P -r^
"E 3 o T- E cu
,0, 0 E -P -r- S-
''• ,
CJ>
o
-•I—
• -p
o
a>
t-1
• i— IO
03 CM
S- 1
cu o
•El
cu >•
CD I-H
*
E
•=C 1 O
Q. S- T- -0
UJ O) -P r—
•P Q- 3 •
•P CU E O CU
O T3 CU ^: N
E X to >>
-a cu r—
CU i — CU fB
•P 3 CU -P E
(B O E (8 (8
•P _E -I— -P CU
co to E co S-
-p 1
0 >
c I"-"
^5"
•a >
r- E
0 "~ •
c" CU "O
co .0 a>
' , i
E -0
O >
T3 3 • "O CU i —
i — en in • — cucui — fB
3CU-r-30^r^E
.E ,
\y* C I --- n
O O fO
rO U E
_J CO rB
-a
>>CU
1— -OT-
•PQi iBr-r ••
• cu
•a
cu
3
E
•r—
•P
E
O
O
78
-------
1
0)
s_
i
>
•r-
r—
•r-
.Q
•r-
10
E
O
Q.
(A
O
IX)
•^~ — ^
•«->
E *
3 r-l
co
"X?
S
'E
i *
o
E
o
E
E
fll
"O
,J T
S-
o
IOTD «4-
-C-r-
«=c
O_
^
g
n
>
w> r—
o E
T3 O> IA E O IO
10 -r- E O J= ttJ 0>
CD
E
Q. O
C 4J 0«i- -Mr- CT-r- OZt-?-r-
O* «S
43
<1> •!-> • E
*• "~
s_
E
o
o
O 0}
i-
• 3
+->+*
£Xr— VO
-
o sr
•
(X M
o
OJ
Ul O
<7t
ECM
Si
(A I
79
-o
0)
o
u
-------
o:
-r-
•P 10
re E
•P 0
1 CO O
to
C 1
•r- OJ -P
1 > E
'^^ !""• Q,
±i^> £
u. >
* *t"
C
0
I/)
•r-
to in
Q) >>
to i—
o re
CL E
o. re
0 OJ
a:
tO
C 0)
0 U
s-
•P 3
U O
re v>
a.
E f™
H r~*
II *"
j
11 • •
•PC
Q. O
O) CJ
'- '
1 O QL.
jl
•
i-
Q
E
(
(
O
S- -I- 1
0) «*- E
+J Cn-r- «r-
0) E E
-O-r- Ol-P
E-i- to re
i-« E = o
,
"
o
u
Of-
•P O
0
S— -p
•r- D-
i~i CU
«° •*>
E • -P <— 1
OJ1*- tO CM
E-r- CL) 1
Or— S-Q
(ft
D- 1-4
•- — ..- • - -
CL)
— f^ ~o c^-*
4J to • CD CL) U- S- -P
S- CU -Pi— S- CO
•i- i— s: re o E CD
re o"_i -P E"« > >r " —
D-S-U-CO 3C_3 O.Q
. • ' • . . ,T ; " ' '-. •
-.' -•-• • " " " J-
; ~ "j --P "re
-* .' .• "• '- E'E
•. . / -'O
•-. ..i .,' "J '•• 73
• ' -jc o
- '• • '- • — "•
. •;-./ ' •" "• • .'-': «.*;;.'
"
0
•s:
CO
«\
^1
CL) >
-P CL)
to -E
O O
U_
•' •'•
-
•- - ' ' " -• -T ' ^
-'-'- ' ' «•
'. ' •' -- • . f"
,'*
'. " * *
••: ".: ..,-.. -u ,
,
i — •
re
£Z
re
, , a>
- a:
J= to t— E
o -p s- re T-
•r- re >,-P
"§ to S- 0 E E
r— O «-l -r- ' 3
O) i — t- E O
o re -p s- o 'M-
S- -P H- to CD -i-
o E* "^^: CU*M*~° re " o
co -r- ca i — re i — 2:
s_
o
ti-
re
si
CU
-p
•r~
- '<_>
•:. , • ' '"c"':- : " • • •
O
0
•P
E
re
i —
: -P
-E
i— t O
.' ,' • . 1
'-.' '
.,.,,,,, j.
j , '•
-.- - • - • , - r- ..... r
•' . , •:• •'".
1 1 . •. .
CO 0 1 E •
•i- «r- >> O •
Er— to.cu ':
to -P o i— re r^
•r- o E re cu'^3
tO,E O O' S-; .ftJ-"* -';
S- -P
5-^-P*
to _a E
re "~ E E .• '
S- 0 CL) . -.
i— O to S- •• ' .
CJ E re 'r™ ' *•
CD 3 : '
CD -P S- CT ' • , -
-p«< re s-
E . —
CU . • :•
a> CD s- • .
E E -P ' ,
t , _, jV ,
^: >-, a> • 1"
tO 1 CL) . 57 :
•r- O. tO 3 ' '
i — Q.T- CD ' "'
.Q re re
re i— >
•p-a cc.
to E «=C >>
CD re CQ i—
•'"' : ',
..... / .'-
O ' '"
<-> :•
•a .. . '• '.
CD r^. •
•,-co
M- CM:
0 Q
•r- 1
•a
cu
•p
E
O
o
80
-------
t-
O)
C CD
3"?
Sl5
-i£ -Q
=5 O
•r—
CU E
in O
O E
O. O
E O
I
•
to s- E
o
to O -I-
w
OL CO T-
i -I—
Q) r—
i- "i-
ja
0) -r-
4-5 CO
(0 C
•P O
oo a,
CO
I
E I
r- O)
> E
5r—
O
LL. >
a>
01
(O
to
o
(1)
O)
to
o
CD
O)
en
(O
en
•P
en
O
O
CD
vo
co
CQ
to
•r—
CO CO
3
O O
to co
a.
CO
o
o
o
o
-P C
o. o
a> o
o \
C O
o s-
t_> a.
cr>
O)
"si
o
•P
o
as
q-
OJ
s-oa
to a
•i— i
cu
•P
x
0)
E 10
tc r~-
o
O t-i
E
I
o
o
l-~
o3 O
OO
-^ I
00
-p
3
O
81
to i
as
CD
-a
a>
E
•r—•
•P
O
O
-------
to
on
CU
£ -r- t- -O
J-
O)
.£=
o
t- ^
Q) •!-
4J
CO E
4-> 0
to a
10
i
E 1
*r~ CU 4-5
> E
Sir- CO
— l O E
U- >
IT
CJ
•r—
to io
>
in i —
0 CO
O-E
CL. CO
o a
{J
E 4>
0 U
t-
j < ™
U O
ro to
Q.
E r—
r-H r™"
(O
C
B
p
.,_
r—
•P E
Q. 0
O) O
E 0
0 S-
o a.
Commenter:
O O O T-
O CO t/1
O. to E
i — CO t/1 O
i— 0 CU 0
•r- O
3 t3 X CU
CU CU -O
S E
0 T- E 3
ac -Q -i- s:
o >^
E-r-
5* • "yrt
•n- ' '-P 3
S- • CO GT •
o >» s- «/J
^: r— cu s- E
^ Q_ "O "r— >-
3 Q. T- CO CU
CO co to 1 O
o o o o o
^ 4-J 0 E 0
X
t/;
CU -
cu to
S- CU
en i/i
CO O
t/j a.
•r- Q.
Q 0
X
1 — t/1
0 4J
S- E
E i —
O Q- S-
CJ CU •
s_ a. t/i
4-> CU Q- S-
S- 3 O CU
0 0 0 4->
0. Q. i—
a. -a cu
3 t- E E
C/5 O CO t/1
Q-
o3 CU
O
^ 'r™
t/1 > E
q- .,- S- 0
O U- CU J3
1/7 -^
• « ^
4-> S- CU 3
D. O 4— m =i S^1"1 •
CU -i- -i- CTi 4-> CO
Q S- r— CXJ E CU i-H
CU "O 1 O T- 1
. +j , — o u u en
to E T- 1 to O 1
. t— i 3 > 3 CO >•
rs i— i I— •— '
•
O^4-*
E CU .
•t- en
> J-
O CO
o • o •
4-> t/1 4-> t/1
CU CL)
^" r^ "
Q. 3 Q. 3
Q. O Q- O
CO t/1 CO t/)
4-5 r™- 4-^ l-~
Or- 0 r-
•Z^ (O ^SZ CO
JC
en cu
O O T-
E 4-> E .
CU S- •
a> cu i—
O -I- CU <=C
s: 4-> -a CQ
0 0
CU CO
o. • -a
Q. CO -E
S_ 0 > CO
E CU 0 CU 4->
.^ §"«* -P t£> t- CO H-
s_ o IQ o in o co o oo co 01
s_«rt- t— i o i— < U- |MU_
i en i EI co i fj T— i
-^ i | ;g- i — i ~^.t— < CO i— i CO' — i — '
-a
CU
E
•p
E
0
o
-------
o
u_
o
Of.
> C
51— 0)
o e
u. >
•p
UJ
0
0
Opposes
Reanalysis
tn
C
0.
5 •
CO CQ
CO
S- II
0>
«o co
in o-
•i- co
X X
o cu
3 >
E "o -p
0 > C
O E CU
1— -r- H
.-a-
CU •
I— -I- CO
S &- +•>
E "O •
•p -r— CU CU
CO 1— >, S- -P
CQ: w» i- -r- I
LL.
o «
IS)
co
UJ
C_
CO S-
J- 3
•r- 4J
u. m
C +> 0)
o c s-
>, CO cn
Q) -P C
CD C O
•r- O
o
i— ro to
n3 0*0
U T3 v- O
Km
US- O'r- C C.
Lot
IJH-
CD
ro JT -p
CD ai
s- cn
o res
QJ i-
ro -a
cu
a)
s- o
ra s- a>
o u
4-> T-> t-
o ns s
z s o
o. o
a>
u
c o
o t-
O Q-
03
3 S- •
O 4-> to
c— T- U) E
03 S- O> O
r— O) S- -r-
4J 03 O •»->
4-03
(U
td cu
•1-5 CD
E tO
=5 E
i — 03
O £
01 (o i
cn cu x
03 E CO
E CU
T3 CD
CUT- -Q
CD CO
O E o-
LU t/> 03 O
"3
O) S-
cu ^£ cn
> o o
(O £ s-
3Z to Q.
T3 +-> 3 O
Q. 03
O to
»-a s- cu
>, E Q- E
H-J 03 Q.T- •
•r- n3 r— T3
r— CO CO CO
•i- > CU T3 +J
_Q •!— > -I- I/)
•r- •!-> •!- 3 CU
X -I- l/l CD 3
0)
U_ Q.
E O>
-r- S-
co
a
O 4-» ^i
> a) c/>
E O -i-
i—i O S-
o
E r—
CO O
•r- O
CO -l->
X
cu
t/1
03
CU -Q
CU o
S- 3 CU
i— O i- -t-> E
3 10 Q- E i—
o
o
o
o
03
CO
03
i—I CU *-t
CnCM
" E I
cu 03 a
+-> s_ t
03CJ3 >
0,
o E
03
"O .
O r- I
O 03
CO
03 I—
_
>, 03
O CM i—
•!-> O O I
+J S- to Q
O 03 to I
O O =C >
CO i—i
o co
i CM
CM
E S to Q
o3 O3 "i— I
S-03 U- >•
CQ I—i
84
OJ
T3 C CO
r— O> -t->
•[— E 3 ^«
3 gj 4J od
CO-r- CM
« 03 •)-> I
E E tO Q
J= 03 E I
03SI I-H >
CU
O
-t-> (1)
CO
Q i
03
Q-CM
O CO
•CM
O) 3 O 0)
to 4-> O > Q
03 O3
<_)
d)
o:
cu
o
-------
s_
o
cu
o_
co
i — 1 CU to
to -a cu E E s-
1
s-
0)
JZ
s
i
i CU 5-
S- 3
•1- -p
u_ to
i
! -x_,L_x__J__
ll 1-
i o to
i T7 in
E -P CU
o c s-
>> cu cn
cu -P c
CO E O
•r-'O
0
QL. -i-
o ^: -P
S- cn to
Q- 3 i—
O. O 3
to S- cn
E .E CU
I-H -P S-
to
cu
-o •
•r- tO
>-p
O E
s- cu
Q--r-
-E-P
tO 3
<: E
X
r— O Q- -P
•r- -i- E Cn 0.
s -P -r- E e
IO • -r— CU
E > -P to E X
•I- S- r— -P S- CU
CU 3 to 3
-P to to O J2 CU
E CU CU O -Q
tO S- S- T3
-p Q. s- cu -a
s- -a cu -a i—
O CU r— .E -I- 3
Q.M— 3 cn i- o
E ••- O T- 0 .E
1— 1 i — 3 .E tO tO
X
X
x .-
X
X
X
X X
X
o o
s-
o
"O
E E
cu to
E _J
S •* CU >>
S_ CO CU E CO
E CU -r- O >
o i— < rn i— i
(_5
to
E
o
•r-
•p >»
tO E
E to
s- a.
cu E
-P 0
E O OJ
i—i CD
S- CM
•< CU 1
fO Q-Q
.E tO 1
O Q- >
>- 1— 1
c_>
(
s-
3
•p
1 —
3 ~
o *
•r-
> :
r—
co
r\
^ -p
o to
3
0 0
* ^*>
E 1 O S-
i- E O -P
cu o to to •
•P CJ to CU
to o
ty, 4J^J+Jcj1 -i— • CT>
r-i -PtotOt— i EO«-H
1 CU CU > 1 -I- O 1
Q C S- S- Q CntOQ
1 S- O CU 1 S- 10 1
> tOU_tO> T-eC>
i— i CD 1—1 > 1—1
^^
-a
cu
3
E
•p
E
o
o
85
-------
CO
£ g
HI -r-
C
J_
3
CO
o
CJ
Ii.
o
to
CO
CO
(U
0
U)
f
i
i
i *-
o
1 ^_
rcj
« CO t-
! *- 3
t t I (^
I o to
•a to
c -p cu
0 C i-
'• >> CO CT
CO -P C
I CQ C O
, T- O
CO r-
r- r- (3 to
ja m o -a
ro o -o •!- o
t. 0 T- E C J=
CU -P E rO -^ -P
t«- CD U CO
CO JE CO E
i- U E
a.
E
4-> 0)
to E
CO CO
s- en
o m
u_ c
E
• co
' CO S-
f™ "r~
.a f-
I CO T3
i £., i—
1 0> «r-
H- 5
CO
S- 0
a. -P
i (0 S- CO
0 U
4J -i-j S_
O (O 3
=r E o
to
•P c
a. o
CO 0
u -->.
c o
i 0 S-
O CL.
>-
4-
a
! !
ii
cu
tt-
4J 4J 4J -r- • -P
§- i- t • ^ o §•
I X X £S S
CO CU CU S CU
CU CO CD -P E QJ
^ . .0 J3 E C| X)
-a -a ~o i — cu ~o
, , — , — i — co i —
3 3 3 CU JO 3
0 0 0 0 C 0
_E r" c* X (O -E
co co co ' ua E co
X
1 CO
4-> CO
to -i- -^^ E
E -P to cu res
CU E E -P E
•P CO O fO
to -a o -P cu
>, E 00 -^
to CO CO O
O Q.J3 -E E
O CO -P to
cu ~a -a T-
i — 3 i — •
CO CO 3 CO -P
E S- O -P O E
O -I- -E E O CU
CO M- tO CU r— E
cu
-P E
-a s- T-
i— (O r—
3 a. cu
O tO
.E CO tO
CO J3 -Q
E O)
CO -P
E to
CU-P
coco
to
E >>
(O J3
"O
CO CO
M--P
•r— (tJ
^0*3 •
•— 013
•r- CU O
s s- c
X
X - X X
X
X
X
x x
X
o o o o o
1 " 1 -g
•r- S- tO T- >>
+J E • CU CU > =
•!— CO o to CO (o
ON E CU E Q.
•r- .p- a; o E
•V +J | i- 1 O
co -.- » cu o .
s-o o «— i • c co to-p*3- " r~-
•r-CM CM OCM EtOCM ECU'-l
4J| «| tol CUCUI COS-I
EQ -^ Q Q-O >t-Q "OXlCj
UJI Ol El CUOI ^ T- \
O>> O^> •!->• -PLL.^- OUi_>-
2:1—1 cj »— < co t— i co i— i ca i— i
o
J_>
Continental Foresi
Industries
IV-D-206
0
1 **
Raybourne, Commis
si on of Game &
Inland Fisheries
• Virginia
IV-D-207
"
CO
3
E
•i—
•P
O
O
86
-------
UJ
s
o
u.
o
>-
<:
i
CO
UJ
_1
ca
D-
i
! -fe
i f*
i •+•*
o
!
i
.
* dj
i a> s-
; s. 3
' *^- -p
i U- tO
c
i «-
o to
. -0 to
; C -P O)
0 C S-
! >> CU 05
i O> -P C
02 E 0
•r- 0
O> i—
r— i— ' fO M
J3 03 U T3
re u -EJ •!- o
S- O >r- E C .E
CD -P E (0 -C -P
4- CD U O>
0) J= 0) E
i. U E
o_
i -P
•P Q.
i| E
01 0)
S- CT
0 tO
LL. C
' ' E
0)
0) S-
fO 73
5- i—
0) T-
4- S
0)
5- 0
Q- -P
' (O S- 0>
O O
-P '•-> i-
o ra 3
•z. e o
w
•P C
Q. 0
>.
C O
0 S-
j 0 Q.
S-
a
£
O
O
States should
determine neces-
sity. Should be
postponed until
after Phase I.
-P O
T3 i- to
i— re re •
3 O.JO O)
O E
co jn o i—
X
>> s-
•P CU
•i— "O •
i— -r- -P
to re to E
CL) 3 E CO
•P CT O E
re o cu
-PS- en
co -i— o re
re -P E
to re
cu -P E E
S- 3 O)
•r- O r- CU
3 <~ f* .^
CT-P o o
CU -r- S- E
o; 3 n. to
-.
X
X
s-
cr> cu o o
1 = cS ^ ^ -H-
5£ +, ' 5 i-
re 3 . E • cu
T3 .a cu cu to -P x
E > E T- CU
CU "O v- -P
to cor- -PS: s- co
3 J3 CU O O -Q
•r- to C CU M- _
-o s- re E "a "a
i — o -Q re re cu r—
3 to' U O O 3
o cu s- . to re o
_E s- o M- re i — -E
CO O.M- i-i O Cu 00
X
X X X
X X
o>
~o
^
o
co
t_> Q.
. ^
3 QJ
••—.
• "O O
E . S-
re ex.
sL
CO
-o cu
•r- -P O
to re E s- x
E *r™ 3
o-o o o
O CU Q. to
CJ
E
> CU
•r—
-P
TI > S- 0
re o>
u_o > r^
O P< T— IO r— LO
S CM C£ CM r- CM
I 1 CL) I
. Q -P Q 3 Q
_Jl-H CO I-H SI H-l
x x
0 0 0
in
to E >> * en
. CU O -P to «— <
4J 0 •!- CU S- 1
CL S- C -P -r- CU O
« CU 3 00 0 -P 1
toQo cncu ot/»s»
to to CU-PE co cu i— i
3 E CU S- O O S~
fd O C£ OS^-r- "O '— >
S.4J D- -P -PLU >
v/ en . " reto ~P ' — '
E-PtO -P-P-r-l^- 3 • ' — *
og •!— re CM -P to o i— ' ^^
JZ2TI CUCUOI -PeC-
cu to o r— s- too to re
i — reM-i tootoi COM-I —
O30> OU_O -EO"=C
O I-H O I-H O
-a
a>
•p
E
O
O
87
-------
o
00
Ul
o
CJ
O!
c
• r*
c
3
CO
a>
JD
U)
CU
a.
co
UJ
_i
CO
,J .^
_, -^
t
1
i 1
i °
• CO
i CO 5-
J- 3
•i- -P
uu ro
c
O U)
TJ
. C -P CO
0 C S-
( >> co cn
! 0/.P C
! CO C C
I E
CO CO
i s- en
O rO
I 1 f*
U» L_
n
E
CO S-
ro TJ
J- r—
CO "r—
i <4- 3:
1 CU
S- O
Q. 4->
ro S- CO
0 U
; 4J TT> S-
O CO 3
Z E 0
U)
•P rz
D. 0
CO U
u \
c o
0 S-
O Q-
S-
a
i! i
ii 5
S- Q. O
CU O)
•a-P >> jo
•1— (O TO ^- *
C/J-P E cu co
ceo ^: w
o « o CD
u en c/i £= c
C E CO T-
TJ't- CO S- IO
r— -P S- 3
3 t/) O) CU J3
.c'x E 0 4-
CO CU D. ey> O
— 1 •
ja i i
•i- C CU
s- s- -a to
O 3 r— CO •
co_a 3 JD CD
cu o> o c
S-T3 E -C ^a i —
X
X
>> Er— CD •
O CD -Q i — 1/1
•r-3 3 3 r— CO
c •— o- o cu
CD M- i- S-
4- CD -P CO
> CD i — O
to JO E 3 Q.
CO O1 O
i— -a CD -c c:
O CD tO CO -r-
X
X X
X X
X
X
i
4-> -P I1
tO O
0 3
o -a
o
-o s-
CD O-
£/)
CO -P
CD «/)
s- cu
o s-
c o
i— i M—
X
X
- ~
,
X X
' • - •• - - :
x x
0 0
O CD
O O E
"O tO CO 1/1
co w CD -*:
s-«=c s-
O 4- CO
i— vi OQ-
O-- ^ „
•v E •* O- co
S- CU 0 OJ
CUr— CM Q " r-1
4-J 4-3 Q . (/) Q
CO CO 1 Q •!- 1
S-0 >• -U- >
n_ i— i co i— i
000
s
IM C CD
•r- CD N
•P N "r~
O +J M—
' ' -r- CJ
„ o
•r-oo s- •* 'CD "^
^: i CD i c/i i
o Q cna to cp
-Pi C 1 to
CD
n &-
C 0
CO U-
-a i « i
CD Q M- C3
CU 1 r— 1
s- > CD >
u_ i— i co i— i
cu
3
O
O
88
-------
CO
> -P. E
00 E O
O) i—
f— i— <0 W
jD 4J £ IO JC 4J
<*- (U U 0)
0) .C WE
t- U £
0.
+J
-P 0)
W E
Q) (U
s- a
O (0
U. E
(0
5
0)
0) S-
5 C
(0 "O
a> £
u_ ^^
*^™ ^£
Q)
re (. a>
o o
+»••-» j-
o re 3
Z E 0
(A
-P E
a. o
O> O
E O
0 S-
O Q-
s-
cu
4-
a
c_
Most State and
local governmel
have regulatiol
Guidelines are
available.
w>
....... y)
S -j-5
+J S . 4J W
E E "O E -r- »
t3+J»
o cn>>ia cnwjia O) to O
Q. EE-0 EOCOE-r-
IO O <1) IO -i— S- •»•*
•- • E^,-^ EtJ^^£?
IO- TOlO IO I/) >• **— 5-
O)
a: 1-1
.
X ' • • •
X X XX
X
tJ <_> O O CJ O
S- E
•!-> E N ' _
IO
S- -t- N ••- E <1>
£ .If E -- - ° • 8 3 i
C_> "i— •* *r- CQ ^ —
» O 10 4-> •»->
>-i^3 •* i — 1 OJ i- ^" "r- LO E IO Cf*
S- t-l S-t-1 "t-t ca U-TDQ
M-l >,! (Ul 31 IMI ej-a)l
•-31—1 | — t— i OS i— i COi—< H> i— i 5> >— «
X
X
X
o
•o
o
o
i. .
c— E
3 O
Q- -r-
4->
E IO
IO -r- VO
o u to
•i- O 1
s- vi o
O) IO 1
E
-------
cu
CU
to
cu t-
s- =3
•r- -P
U. CO
o co
TD W
e -p cu
o c s-
>> cu c
cu -p c
CQ c o
r— ro to
ro u "o
u t3 •<- o
fc. O -I- C C J=
co -P
co
(U
.c
U
ro J= -P
u co
cu
cu
.Q
-P CU
0 E
CO O)
s- en
o ro
u. c
CO
CO
UJ
co s-
5
ro
Q) ."~
s- o
ro
o ro =r
cu
o
o s-
cu ex
o o
•I—I—
> cu •
s- > 10
cu cu cu
co-a c:
CU
•p
to
cu •
S- CO
cu
CU
O) 3 -O
S- O v-
U_ CO C7>
-a ro
ro -P
cu co
-p -a
o o
T3 a.
Q. to
cu
a> o
to 4-
ro i-
Di O
to
cu cu
4- +J O
-O 00 -P >>
CU O O -P
_o o- ro -r-
cu
CO
s- ro £T-
ro cu
•p en
c. ro
II
O
to CD
cu >
-i- -Q
'
10 -P
-
.T- ' CU
cu
cu
s- s-
h- r- 0 -P
co to to
X
X
X
x
x
C_5
O
cu
NJ
O
CO I
o i
.
O CO
O Q
CU
Q
\—t CO t—<
M- CO
O CU
O U.
> ro co
•r- O
Q to i—i
• s- Q
•-3 ro i
90
O
to
CU O
S- i-l
O t-1
cu
C CM
O t-H
T3
O
CU
CU
ID
-o
CU
• Q
u_ o a
ro > «sC'
Q i—i CD
•P
j= i
o >
•-3 I-H
-------
LU •!-
2C C
3
CO
S
I
"si
"O
U)
o
a.
i—
co
-o S
^_ O)
O)
(U
•?- <0
-o
s-
o
ceo
]
. s-
.c
: "" ' o
"re
0) £-
S- 3
•i- -P
u_ re
C
H-
O W
•O «A
C 4J Q)
O E S-
>>tt) 0
0) -P E
03 C p
•r- O
0) i—
r— r— re «
ja re u -a
m u *a *f- P
I- O -r- C C -C
a> -P • E re .E -P
<*- o> o a>
at jc a> E
fc. 0 E
+j
+» a)
(A E
m AJ
s- an
p n
e
CD
0) _S-
s «E
re -o
S. i—
a* v-
a. +J
re s- a>
p u
4J •<-> J-
p re 3
z s o
(A
-P C
Q. C
O ^
C O
o s-
0 Q-
•v •
si
a
£
C
CJ
lOr-SM-- -O.Q-S-CO
i— -t- T- j Q*—11?, I
3JQ4J ^l+> 4Jt3Ojq-P • +>
C3>i- 3 : C r-. C U C >>CO
1- T- S- OJ <1) E O r— OJ CO • O S JD O -^ ^ -Q » -^ O »•— W> W> i- £ W) "O O
•^ &. (A O r~ O- tO "O Q. re -P
» ~O3 •!-= 3 jc a> s- o +^ o c a> s.
,— EC O)i- i— i «*- O CO S Q. ID O "O
X
• ' ' ' ' ' . - '-
x ' -'.•-
X X X
-
X XX
' - . : -
CJ O O O O CJ .
s- . - •
(!) .'....
is w o ,
•i-3-O S-
s- co c (A c a> i-
S- O CS ' E 3 ' f-
CO +-> +* CJ O -t-5
• a»tiOCM CJ-CM CO 3CO
Q.3 •!— r-l O»-lS-i—< r-«>! «OI Ol "O 1 • +» 1 O *r- 1
f~^t ^_ g^_ i^^ ^« ^/) /*^ i » <*^ f t~\ tO **^ O5 S— i_i
3I 4->CAI I «OI 1 S15*'
LI- HHZ,»— <— l»-HCQi— «O>— I O •— i
•„
^ i^
•a
(U
E
+J
E
O
O
91
-------
_ s- -o
> E cu E
to T3 o
10 S- E O
CU O> 3
cn o ^a
to S- CD CU
E O. E
CU
Or—
CD I
E S-
•r- CU
3 10
•> O
•a
CU CU
o -a o
•Or—
a; -I- o
•> to E
•r- IO
+J -i- T3 •
o E i— a.
a> res
to a.
ai o
s- +J
cu
o
IO i—i • to tO
ex to
E cu _
•r- tO T- CU
CU •!->
O TD
fO O
<0 r- O -r; 5-
O E CO
CD
E 01
.r- ,— c -a
£Z C 3 O CU
i— <
oo o *
to
O CU T- O
•z. E E
CU
cu to
ro
cu -
s- n
•r- -P
u_ to
X
O in
•o to
c •»-> cu
O C J-
>> CU OJ
Q) -P C
GO c: o
CU r-
i— r— (0 01
-
to
u
•!- o
I- O «r- C C
0) 4J
H- CU
CU J=.
'— O
X
u cu
cu
UU •!—
O ' CU
^» *!••
£• i~
£-
O fO 3
-P C
a.
cu c
o -
o s-
C_J
cu •
o >
S- M-
3 Q
4- O
O tO
cu to
OJ tO 4-> «*
O S- t/> t— I
3 CU
O
• 4-> S-
O I
cu
IM
o
.c: o
> I
O Q
•P I
to :
cu
IM
S- CO
o
en a>
r- S- Q
S- O I
CM
O I
4-> Q
cu
to
o
en
to
tO O
T3 O I
to CO Q
> to i
CU •
; I-H ca
o
to
.a
cu
CU
O
o
cu
cu
co co
t^
E i-I
O I
O1O
CU I
cu
o
92
-------
T3
in
\— O)
LU •(-
s
O 3
o ca
u. -o
o a)
JD
U
in
01
a.
i
co
UJ
3
1
J-
cu
.c
4->
o
re
i CU J-
*- 3
! •.- -P
u_ re
c
M-
o in
T; t/i
C 4-> CU
o c J-
>> cu cr
CU -P- C
CD C O
. v-'O
Q) i—
i — i — re in
JD re u ~o
re u -a -i- o
S- O -r- C. C JC
cu -P E re .c: -P
<»- cu u cu
CU JZ CU E
S- 0 E
Q_
c
•P CU
w E
cu cu
1- O!
o re
u. c
3 T- E E
CU O" E CU CU •
S- cu en E E 1—
T3 -r- S- CU CJ
cu fO c/) •«•" cn^
+J (C (O CQ
(O CU •** -P Q. E
•PS- O E 5 -P -- en
o en , r~- o
t—. CU -P S-
•P O CX) Q.
CU (O " CU 1
ja S- TTJ cu en cu
•P JD S- E -P
"O I/) 3 Q.T- n3
r— 10 -P 3
3 E 1— in cr
os- -P o: -r- cu
j= cu o <=c x -a
co -P z: CQ uj re
,
X
X
X
X X
X X
CJ O
c
in "r~
CU , • o tn >•
0 1-1 21 H-1
00 0
Q- tO
S- E
O O in
04- -r- -P
O S- -P O
CU >» CU (0 3
-a • -P Q-^. -o
res -P -r- (O ~^*~ o
O O-i— Q- S- UJ > E HH U_ -=C
CQ 1 — I O • — ' '^
CO
I —
CM
Q
1— f
-a
cu
3
E
•p
o
o
s —
93
-------
(O
a)
o
-p
2
o
CO
m
LU
cn
t-
=3
•a
a>
u
(A
(U
Cu
to
CU £-
S- 3
•r- -P
U- (0
c.
q-
i cu
S- E
. o> cu
O Q- -Q
** >
• to
CO O
.^- 3 3 E O
|gl° *
E CU -P
O E O
CU
u
CO
CO
CO
•i—
(f)
^
(O
CU
o
la co
E
O
-r- •
-P CO
§
I "O
a; cu
S- CO-P
Q.E CU
-a
(Q
cu
cu cu s-
O)
0).r-
>, 00 3
•P O cr •
•t- O.CU CU
co
z
o3
.p S- -O
3 (O
CU-Q CU E
O -Q S
E O E
o cu E cu q-
•p
co
•=£
CO
CU CU T3
CO
cu
0)'4J ™
en c o
•i- O
S- O
Q_ -P
X
s-
o
tO 3
E O
LO
•P
O. O
a> o
(_>>-*.
c o
o s-
o
o
Q.
O
CJ
Cl)
o
o
o
-------
LU «i-
O
u_
o
' Q£
1 J-> CZ 1 • 1
• S-
01
.p
o
r—
re
o» s-
S- 3
•r- -P
u_ re
E
t-
O CO
-o oo
E +> CU
0 E S-
>, CU U)
a> -P E
CO C O
•r- O
p..
i — re oo
tO U T3
U T3 T- 0
0 T- C E -E
-p E re -e -P
a> u a)
-E CU E
U E
•P
4j a>
oo E
CU CU
s- a
o re
u. c.
*c
£r
a>
cu s-
o 4«
re -a
£- i—
CU -r-
s- 3:
cu
t- 0
O. -P
re s- cu
o u
+> T-S S-
o re 3
Z E 0
: W
•P E
Q. C
u \.
E o
o s-
O Q.
•
c
1 ^
E
C
O
O 3 CD CD QJ O QJ CO CO CD i-
•i— CD E E CD O i — ES-E3
,_ QJ .,_ .,_ CD .Q >
q- s- _E co E -i- >-r-
toxto ajq- cor-3-i- s- -i- i— > to
OQJES- S-fOO-P3S-E -P
OCD^=OOO3 OOEU
i — .E-r- CO-P-r- i — S-CO OCU
i — +J4J-ofe re E"Oi — re cuoo-r-q-
•r- -I- re E r-* S- O E O OJ" S- fO -P 4-
33i — fOOOQJEreQ.ED_.ErecU
QJ
-P S-
-a co -o E -i-
J^ 3 QJ 3 O "O
O O > O O S- i—
re s- QJ jc o o i-
CQ CDr— oo re M- 3
•
00 QJ S- -P
QJ > O -i-
o re -P s-
-O.E 3 0
-p ^r
eo; 4J »o -P
Du O +J 3
LU c to re
1
E 1
-a o QJ i
r— -P O CD-r-
rs T- co ui
O O O E -i-
JT -P S- 4-> 03 >
CO QJ E
CO .E >> ^P 00
00 QJ -P S- QJ QJ i—
E -P cu re -^ 'QJ re
o re -E to o E o
•r- -P 3 00 E CD
•P 00 QJ to O
re cu o -P >>
r— 3 "0 C1J S- -P
3 0 -i- E QJ -P -r-
CDi— 0 -0 E i—
QJ i — QJ CO -ir QJ -r-
c£. re "a -i— co E .a
X
I
CU CO CU
S- Or-
Q- E O-_C5
q- ° oo x
O QJ T- CU
-P -i- >>M-
O 4- -P E
QJ -r- 1-1
<4- -0 r—
q- QJ -r-
QJ ^3 J2 •
•i- -i- CU
•P S- CO >
tt) O -i- -r-
z: oo > -P
requirements upon
State agencies.
*
^>
re
VI
c>
c_i
QJ
1 CU
CD M
Q) O T-
i- ~O E
CD
-O 00 O
CU E O
CO O CU
O •!- S-
Q.-P
o re -P
S- r— O
a. 3 E
o
>>
S--P 0
o oo o
-P QJ 00
OS- oo
QJ O i— «C
s-u_ re
5 QJ "si S^
« re to to CM
>,>- 3 QJ 1
OJ-H--O S- U_
S- S- E O 1
re D_ i— i u_ :=• ..-?• ;
° I~H ^fe ..
c_>
«a:
Q.
1 1
t ' --I -•
•^^ '
• I-H'
S- Q-
CD >^^C
s: -P
-r" «
"I — OO
CD re E
E 3 re
•i- O- S- OO
T3 CD 1
t— S- O LU
QJ -r- S- 1
•r- <=C. Q- >>
LJL. • i — i
0
Q.
E
0
E
O
•r-
E
Z3
« Q. 1
E S- U.
re o i
E O >
O H- 1
-a
cu
•P
o
o
-------
CD
> o
(/]
E
m\j CD
CU -r-
I
CU t/>
CD
CO CO O S- •
in o E 5-
O O T- CO
s- to
cu cu
1
o
o
i
-a
cu
I CD
CD t/>
s-
5
0
*-5
•i- 4-5
LL. ro
E
"*-
0 «/>
~a to
c -p eu
0 C S-
>, cu cr
CU 4J E
OQ C. 0
1 T- O
0) i—
Hi— i — ro in
La to o TJ
CD U TT •>- 0
S- O -i- C E J=
.E CJ *3 CO
>, i/i en
4-5 4-5 CD CU 3
o •!— s- o£ o
E S- 0. •—
O r—
to_E cu • co
CD 4-* 4° en
O 3 CO E -O
-OCO---
«=r CU en S- O
Q-.E CU 3.E
UJ 4-5 S- -Q. to
CU l/l 10
^
O 3 t/1 E
>> 3 0
CD i— OT-
t/> Q-.E 4->
CO CO
CD " "O r—
S- S- EM-
o cu co E
E -@ . - - .
•r— t «"
3 S- t/1
i— i— CU-r-
•— 0-
•r- t- CO 4->
3 O O-l-l
r—
3
O
.E
l/>
t/>
CD
4J
CO
£1
0
l/l
O)
5-
0_
1 \
o
E
to
O
Q
-a
^
c
jz
determine whetn
regulations nee
sary. Should c
CD
s- -a o
•r- i — •
M- 3 4->
0 i-
~O ^Z CO
to
I"E
S- CO
cn
°4^
°-5
CD CO
4->
CO ^=
E 4J
'-o's
1
'oi
i/)
^o
VLf
• Er—
(/) O-r-
CD 0-4->
•r- 4J E
O tO 3
E O
CD O- 01
en E
•a: -o o
r— *3 4J
fO O CO
S--EI—
CU CO 3
i— i
i — i
CD
to
CO
D-
s-
o
i— i
HH
cu in Q.JD
•
1 ^
fr^
^_
o
cu .E
CO 3
^= co
i
.E
,[ ^
CU CU
40 £
CO C
H- 1
0 !=
C
i ^ c
'•
1
f^ *
O tO
cu
' r«
en
I-
3
CO
•a
o
JQ
«i—
u
(A
Cu
OJ i—
r— i — ro 10
J3 (0 O T3
(TJ O T3 •>- O
£_ O -i- E E JZ
O) 4-> E (0^=4^
(4- (U U CU
£ "o 1
O-
•E
4-> CU
CU CU
s- cr
£ E
i
0) £
CO "O"
S- i—
Q) .r-
t- 5
cu
s- o
O_ 4->
CO S- CU
O CJ
4J T-, J_
0 tO 3
z: E o
Q. 0
II cu o
0 °
O Q-
• •
S-
O)
4-9
I
o
-a .E
. — ,[ ^
3 cu cu
O 4-5 E
JE CO E
tO 3 S— "r~
r— CU
a. > 4-> -a
uj cu o o
•r—
E >
O 4-5
J/j 4-> co a
S_ 0 • CU 3
CD CU r— S- "O
> q_ o O O
-o n- o c: S-
«=C cu 4-5 t-H ..«?-
.
to
si
CD
«
3
^
^
1
C"^ *
H- 1 O to
o E cu
O f~~ ^
4-5 i- CO 'r™
_^2 «r— 4-5 4J
•i- E CU CU
i— CU E '0
• -
*.
0 00
> s- ^r „_
E cu «o ^ ^
^•__ •*£ !4 cu • s- to
• = o-a ' «-•£_ 43 ^^
>«a^° QCU cure
^^^ Q>, s_-o>>
^^J^^j.CSJ E • 4-5 <— 1 CU 4-5W
^Scucocuoi o^s^a « tf S u
e r^ t! fiirti t/)COOI XOO
a)li-eCU-CC> n i — iO i-
3
-H
>
H
T3
CU
E
O
O
96
-------
E
S-
co
QJ
U
U1
cu
D_
cu
5
(0
i.
cu
<4_
0
s-
Q_
CD
•P
0
r—
TO
0> S-
S~ 3
•r- -P
u_ to
C
H-
O 01
•a 01
E -P CU
0 C S-
>> cu a
CU -P- E
CQ E O
•r-'O
r_
i — to in
«0 U "D
u -a T- o
O -i- C E -E
-P E fO -C -P
a> u a>
x: cu E
U E
•P
E
-P CU
w E
0) CU
t. ra
o to
U_ E
IT
E
CU
01 S-
to -a
S- r-
CU T-
t- 5
CU
S- 0
0_ -P
(B S- 0)
0 U
•P •!-» J-
0 10 3
Z E O
(ft
-P C
a. o
cu o
u *•>
E O
0 S-
t_J Q_
S-
a
i
i
o
C
ea
cu
01 -P
.E -P
oo
•r- CU
J-T-
0 -P
M- O •
•r- CU C
i — <4- tQ
reM- i—
O CU O.
1 1 0
EC -r- -a
CU 3 1 -P " —
OT-P 0 02
re s- s- cu o
O Q. CDOO -E
CU Q- E 01
<+- Q. S «r-
•r- O CU E •• — - E
, — T- S- 01 LO CU
-O E > 3 E — '-P
i — CU CU .Q O' — • -P
•r- > S- -r- M- -r-
3-r- -a -p —^ s-
cn o cu "3 10 s
CU -P -Q r— O CU
+J 01 T- 3 OO 5-
n3 cu >) s- CD •
•P "i— -P O CU «— ' CU
OO1 O -I- 01 i- LO -Q
1
01 CU
c s-
0 Q. •
•r- CT>
•P O E
ea -P v-
i— E
3 C S-
CD O 3
' •!— >">
S- -P
re "o
cu o cu
O1 'I— .Q
0 r- -r-
Q. Q- S-
a. Q. o
o re 01
-p
1 — 01
0 0 1
S- O E
•P T-
E CO
0 E •—
O -r- i—
E -i—
01 • S- S
CU CD 3
> E .a s_
O-r- CU
S- E -P J2 •
a. s- 3 E cu
a. 3 o -i- 01
re J3 JE -P re
01 -P CU.
• r- It- -r- q- S-
Q O SOU
X X
-o
>> cu
CUi— -P
J3 CU -i-
S- JQ
i— CU -i-
1 — > Jd
•r- CU E
3 01 v-
X >*^
x
-P O
01 O
CU 01
S- 01
0«=C
Ll-
CU
fO ^*
E -P OO
S- 0 CT>
o cu CM
•r— O Q
i— S- 1
tea. >
0 I-H
<4— CU
0 t- >,
01 -r- O
. S- i— E
o cu -a cu
0 -P i—CT)
01 01 -r- •=£
01 a> a: >
2: t— 1 1 — I— 1
0
s-
cu
cu
'CU LO
>• 00
I— 1
O 1
re i
-a >
1 — I 1— 1
0 0
c
a>
N
'•p
•1—
cj s-
cu
E o re CM
O 00 Q- l~-
01 i— 1 t— 1
S- 1 -PI
CU Q -P Q
-o i o i
cu > o>
Q. I— I 001— 1
CJ>
, —
Inland Forest
Resources Counci
IV-F-31
-o
CU
3
E
-P
E
O
O
97
-------
f-
oo
LU
CO
*-
o in
•a in
c .p eu
0 C S_
>> cu a
5/-P c:
CO C O
•r- O
i — ro in
ro u -a
U TJ T- 0
o -i- c ex:
•P E ro .c -p
CU (J CU
-C CU E
O E=
+3 Q
in E
0) CU
s- en
O rt
a
cu
cu u
ro -a
£» r™~
CU »r-
Ct^ ^
cu
S- 0
Q- -P
ro t- cu
o u
+J -r-j S_
o re 3
*Z 1= 0
in
-P C
a. o
CU 0
U "V.
C 0
0 S-
o a.
S-
Q
C
0
c
•r- 1 I"
•P CO Q. C
o c E • o XJ
CU T- CU to +3 jQ
cj_ s_ o re -r-
CTJ 3 «r- ' — *~
^.5 .43 30
CO tO -r- CO tO
re -a c -a cu cu
.c cu o £= s- *-
.Q -r- O Q. • •
-§H1£0 SEE c3
•EB-Sfr l-S'g o
o cu co re • °- ^ -in S-
,— S_ CU £_ Q.O3 Q.
'U-Q.S-0 0 -P -0 0
-
x' x
§f
o
CU £
•p
re 10 •
S o •—
cu .c -p
•p -P to
i — CU O
•=C E o
o
o
CU -P
re to •
E "O >">
S- 0 •— .
CO _E -P
•P -P to
r— CU O
•=C E 0
X
X
o ' o
o cu c:
o M— re
in -i- o
g*i^ u s«
re r^ c;c
O o3 1— c/l
•r— O S-
•P x: CD . cu LO
re to CM >,-P co
E -r— CO -P to CM
S_l_l_ 1 CU CU 1
cu a -i— s- Q
•pit- 1 O 0 1
£= O >• O U- >•
i— i (— I CO I— <
o
£>
Arkansas Forest
Commission
IV-D-246
0 00.0
t/)
•f—
>> !?
c ** Qj **
£5 S- Di S-
to a; • aj
cu c +> • *~
i- o to -P to
o° co oo a;
M_ 4-> S- 5-
irt «rt- O ** O ^"
^•GR ' ^§8 -S ^-^ ^^R
?§S «o rai ^§^
°J2 5^=1 ^g.^ 55>
Gu M oo »-< s: i-" oo >-H
-a
cu
c
'•p
0
o
98
-------
o
u
CT
C
5-
CQ
5-
O
CO
a.
r--
oo
LU
_J
CQ
OJ
f-~
Q
fO
S-
O)
^.
O)
s-
c.
S-
4J
0
(U S-
S- 3
•i- -P
U_ (0
c
<*-
O CO
"O CO
C 4-> O)
0 C S-
>, oj a
cu -P c:
CQ C 0
•r- C_>
,
i — (O CO
«J U -O
u -a v- o
0 -i- C C J=
•P s ra j: -P
CU CJ &>
J= . S-
O tT3 3
z E a
-P C
a. o
cu o
U "v.
c o
0 S-
o a.
il
•P
cu
C_3
O)
0
Q.
Q-
O
.
C
o
o
c
Q^ »p— ^^ •
J2 i- >->
XX -O CO CD
^g^^ X X
3 tO ««- 0 -2 <-
"^ § °- 4-S 1
^^- -g ^S tg^ o
tO =3 0 Q- CU PS
•P"S:CUCJ: jr°*
OOi-S- Q I£JJIQ
CUCUCD 4-VO i— O CO T)p5 c-!^
ro4j+j^j- oo tato-•! to"~L Si-L
LU U. U_ >• 4->> OZ:> 0> ,=; S CJ S
2: i— < to i— i s: >— i o i— i <_->>— i «_i i—
0
CO
Q.
•1—
r—
r—
•I~~
J=
D-
2:
•o
o
re
CT>
Q
1
1— 1
T3
CU
O
O
99
-------
CD
G c
O -I-
•r- C
•P S-
CO 3
O
CD-O
> (B o
0) -P C
CQ C O
•r- CJ
i— , to to
«O U "O
U XJ •!- O
fc. O v- C C . ~
0) -P - - -
4-
u
c o
o s-
O 0.
C_3
CDO
CD
.
CO Q-CS
O)
• o -a
to
to r—
3 -r- O»
.Q O LO
H-1 tO JZ
to ta to
CD O I
O
O)
fO 4-*
c c:
•i— QJ fo
o 'o ol
o o.
Q CD
re c:
CD a
O S-
a:
I-H CD t—< Q3 I—i
100
-------
!
'
r
i **
i
!
t
i i.
I 5
i
1
»
•TJ
i CO'
It 14 10
j'cs. re
i ^ -.
'&. ST.
do
i
'•PCS
0§
* s_
3 0
.s*
•O E
fd CU
CU d
-o o
•r* r—
> CU
O >
i- 0>
CLT3
4->Q_
ECO
CO i-
1 OJP
Q
•ij C
CL o
O) C_>
0 V.
c o
0 S-
0 Q.
i ,
• •
&~
a
c
|
E
O
o
oo
o
i ^
id
•!••
,
CU
r^
o
(j
s_
CU •
> O)
O E
ISr
-J
'so "
-' 5
.... ^
:
r— . . _ ^
•5 " ~
-
0
+J
O
CU
•r-3
O
r\
S-
cu
(5 CM
1
,__ 1
co i— i
CU
-^
f
3
o
c*
CO
c-
o
id - —
e ,
CL
CL
id «
- -o
T3 CU
CU 00
OO-i-
Id >
-E CU
D. S-
' }
-
Approach presented in regulations is
premature. Inadequate understanding
of pollutant transport and transfor-
mation mechanisms. Lack of: vali-
dated models, monitoring techniques,
cost/benefit methods for alternate
control strategies, understanding of
human perception. Phase II - regula-
tions for SIP & BART analyses.
CL.
>j
E
0 rd
•r- CL .
P— £Z
o o
3 O
Q_
cu oo
id o r--
E-r- CM
0 > 1
tsi i- a
si oo >
r^t Q)
i — , E CL
CD 3 CU •
E E 00 -O CU
•i- CU O
00 CU +•> >> S-
cn id r— 3
+J S- E -M O
oo id -r- o oo
E r— E CU
••- -I- S- CU
Id OO i. T- r—
OH-> O T3 D1
id O oo E
id T- oo •!—
OO O.O CL OO
I-H O CU
E J2
o E
CD-t-
CU 1—
0 S-
0
E 00
O E CM
OO CU 1
E O 1
CU 3 >
Q i— i
O1
E
•I— OO >— 1
> 4-> H-l
id oo
.E CU 00
3 00
^•^ C3^ fl3
- 00 -CU r—
E a: cj
•r-
id o
en « +->•
id E
0 >->
O -r- r—
J- 3 Q.
^ r~ Id
3 i—
CL O E
CL O
00 1-
+-> CO 4->
Or— O •
CU jQ CU OO
4J.,- +J id
O CO O CO
i- -r- t- fc-
o- > a.
^ i— i
E
r""
CL
S-
id
. CU
>5
1
LO
id •
00
•P E
CL CU
O r—
"O J3
id O
s-
•O Q-
*3 >,
o-o
00 4-»
So
Ul 4J
Basis for regulations should be
developed before compliance strate-
gies are required. SIP revision
would require a plan to develop
modeling or pollutant concentration
monitoring.
0_ Q-
o
E
l— i
CT>
«>CM
O OO CT>
03Q 1— U_
xi co i
CU > I-LI ^*
r— l— i .3 >— i
-a
CU
3
E
•r-
E
O
O
~-^
101
-------
s-
o
£
cu cu
tor—
tOJZ
J= O
I
O E
kg
Er—
CU
s- to
o cu
E to
•r- tO •
.E LO
x o-cn
to cu «-i
1 -C
s
'!
,!cu
•<•* |j
•° cu
u v)
0. S-
0-
O.
3 CU
tsl
~a to
cu
CLE
CO O
to
to
cu
to
o
— "
(0
• ^|
CU
S- r—
Q. 3 T- , |
S-
Q.
"O "r^
CU E
U 3
>?'"•'
1 1
-Er-
s- to
^= S- CU •
u cu to cu
tO •«-> r—
(O CU 3
CCr- J3 S-
"
-
" .
x x
§
•r- '
: E
S ' ,
• X ' " •*
CU •
S_ '
nj ' '•
cu - . .
X> E
CO CU
| €
CU Q.
•a o
•n* t^™
> cu
o >
S- CU
CL-0
1 \ f^
O" — '
ECO
to S~
QJ O
i ^*">
(
I
i'
\- c
licx o
U QJ CJ
IE o
Hot.
t£C_) Q.
i
• •
s-
cu
c
1 c
! 0
1) t-3
*
*. .
Q. D-
tO
U
•r—
(0
4->
0 •
CQ O
O
c to
rO O to «^-
O) co eC co
•r-ja i i
.E 3 a (— Q
Or— 1 00 1
•r-O > LU >•
S *-* 3 >-i
1 '••"'. 1
: LO . •
*°
to •
- cu ,
• • ' 3
cr • • . •.
cu to
S- to !
cu
"° ^,
r— CD 1
3 E
00
-co.
to .
E
eC 0
Q. S-
,. ^ **-
a. Q. o_ a. o Q- a.
;•
i.
c . ' -C* 0 E 5
m 00 CU X CU 0 CU
g . E S CU E 4J to _N ^
-2 — ' S ' 3 ^" N = < '-P fOC1-
13 q_ .,_ H- T- 1 ' •«- -P 3
°°co cs °°s -Ss -§TS «g «oS
§£? ' -V 3^-T1 -7 2117 £7 §-a7
0)^0 too Eo-PQ EQ 0 CUQ 4JQ E !c ?
^ Dii— i 1 »— i Q i— * O.i— * Q~ >— * SI *— *
ed
cont
102
-------
tn
r-
UJ
o
o
ce
in
' «0
0.
i
1
i
1 s-
!i °>
+J
O
iu in
•r- CO
•r- OL.
U
ICO i-
Q. 0
CO
«*- c=
en to
c v>
o
ai 2:
-o •
O)Lf>
CO
in
T3t-l
r—
3 «
O >
JC O
COZE .
0. O
£
3
CO O
2 5
4-> 0
CO CO
n 1 1 1
C 3 CO t-H
re 4-^ ^i~ ^^ 10
O -i- CM « CM
•P-+J 1 S- 1
S- to Q (DO
e£ l— i CSi— l
a.
o
IS
o o
^: c
ear approac
promulgatio
2>^
T- C •
+•> re s-
• — •
3: l-i
ta
0)
+j
Q.
-8
re
jQ
r— C
3 O
O'f-
V> t-
re
22;
Q-CO
Q.
^3 S^
O) *^
CO 3
re CT
Q. S-
a.
re
••- CM
Oi— • > 1
N re > s- a
•t~ Q) *r— QJ 1
S- 3: Q CO >
CO
2
a
u
CJ> 3
*^^ 4^
i— re
ja E
a,|
3
M- >>
o re
o a>
•r- IO
4-> re
re -c
•i- Q.
•i- 4-»
c: co
1-4 t-<
a.
f""
re
0
•rr
O)
3 Q
tO O 1
3 •-«
•o co £
a> ,
to c
O--«- 3
2^2
Q. a>
• ^b
re CD re j .
-CO
o r— a.-
=J r- 0
W) Or-
«i_ a>
Q) >
i— a> a»
J3-J3Q
re
•!-> -O
IP^ •
E 0 E
•f— _f2 «p—
•1^ CX) +^
O>| — CO -CO T- 4-> CO
re i Q i Q o i
i — O • Q CO O
4-> 1 CO 1 S= r— 1
o s> • :» re ui s=-
Q_ 1— I ^ l— « CO •— 1
(continued)
,
103
-------
Q)
•p •-*
us'
r
F
iFE.
cu J-
o. o
U
ro
O)
en
to
OJCQ
3 O
C3"
CO
i
CO
UJ
,
•o c:
'
• 0)
Q.-O
CO S-
0) O-
c/>
+J 3 S-
O O
v-
OJ C t/)
o •«-> to
•r- -i- •<-> -O
-t-> E O CU
O3 i- -
O Q) Q-p
•r- Q. E S-
C). *r* CL
•r- O O-
•o
ns
03 s- -r- -a tn
O)
fO "O
O 3 T3 O
S- > E-i- E
o cu
10.0
Oi—
CU
03 4->
> O
CO CO
O) o ns ns
03
D_
a>
N
•P LO
i— CM
CO O
(U I
CQ
a>
CU I
+J «C U-
to co i
cu
cu
to co
CU CU
•>•!- CO
03 ^ Q
03
S- O
03 T-
Q- •»->
03
i— > I--
03 S- t~>
E CU CVJ
O t/> I
•r- E Q
4-> O I
fl3 O >•
U1
. S-
o cu
to in
to cu
03
LO
_ CU '
O •!-> I
•r- O3 U-
+J +-> I
03 CO ^«
CU
N
CJ
4J Q
03 I
CU >•
3= i-"
CU
N
03 CU
E O
O E
•i— O3
4-> S-
«3 3
>!-« O
LO
S- CU I
cu
o LO
03 I
CU >
cu
_a -i-
a
a>
o
104
-------
u
to
o
a
a
rH
O hH
0 cu
u
•I— RJ
•r- Q_
U
cu s-
Q. O
CO f-
|g
• cu
25
a--o
Oi— i
coo
00 S-
cu o
a
* •
4-> c
a. o
a> o
C 0
0 S-
O CL-
s_
cu
4-3
E
cu
c=
o
o
X X X X X
o_ Q. a. 'a- o-
E i
CD «3 E
•N . S N
4-3 CU CU CU •!—
•i— N N «/l -P
CJ •!— •!— C -i—
4-> 4-> O O
« .r- -r- C_3 i—
-^ ° CJ ^"(5 "
31^. «^H •> ^f- T3CJO CU <—
_QQ EC3 i — CD" — OQ EU-
£_ i S- 1 .,- | r— -r- 1 O) I
>-l — i 3; i — i CD >— l O- ' — ' CI5l — i
1 ^
s-
o
a.
Q.
3
to
O
S
fO md
s_ p •
CT> S- tO
O -r-
-r- CO > -P >
rg i — i c£. *— < CO I— 1
n?
E CU
CU r-
"to i— _a
E "O fO
.0 C C
•r- (C O
-P .E tO
(O n3 '
i— O CU
3 -P S-
.cn '.:.-:.-
cu cu to
s- -P • to
fO CU CU
M- 3 N S-
O CT fC T3
O) ^1 T3
CU "O fO ' *
S- to i — l/>
3
+-> CL) E -P CU
0 jQ O S-
S- -P C71 CU O
•P O CU CU S-
OO C S- 'Z. O-
\
i
1
I
• i
' ' !
•--
.
x
1
ii
. I
"1
.S ' o' • ii
tO -i— S-
cu > cu
D; s_ to
CU 3
CU CT1 CO LO CU LO
U_ -^- OO tO IO
1 CM tO OO _E CM
(01 CU 1 S- 1 i
4-3 O •!— Q CU CJ i
C 1 -PI >, 1
rtS > -i- > CU >
CO 1— i CJ i— i 3i—i
T3
cu
3
O
O
105
-------
+J
>*
i o=
LU U
3C re
SE O
0 S.
o a
a
U- «C
o
TJ
>•
(O i—
=J 0
cr
*^j c
ro a
£
CD a.
-o c
25
D.-O
C c
a. o
OJ CJ
c o
0 5-
0 Q.
•
i-
(1)
4->
C
a
c
C_
to
3
S-
Q.
(C
Q.
0
;r-
J*~
o
CD
Q.
<"
S_
0 •
CD
1 ' Pj ^
(O CD
Q .a
X X
c
E=
'S
q3
CU
S-
.
cu
"T^
s_
... - 3
to
TD
^4-5 CO tJ y* j*^ ^° ™ ^.
•1-5 l/) CVJ r^* tn r^* ^^ ^r** "-w
OJ GJ 1 ** l^ *p -L ^* ^\ — L
•r— S— C3 -^- ^J w LJ ^- •(— * i— *
O O 1 ^ ^J ^ ^1 i^ I1^ .^
OO^-Soi-. SHH oa H-.
Q- a. Q- Q- Q. D_
c: o c to-
m ' CU fO C
N -a . £3. «O
j_s m >. •> o C <3
-r" N co si i.0
^^^ I ^ &. c/1 C
« .,- -cUCSJ-r-S- M-io1!-
r-^t- C_3CT> C7> f~^ ^_> 1 1
flj i p— i cci 01 3> O) 1— i > •(/}>• •4->-> •*->>•
CO i— i O i— i Cfl 1—1 3 i— i OO i— i CO i— i
-a
Q)
3
c
•I—
+•3
c
0
o
*" **
106
-------
UJ
o
C£
<-O
CO
ro
LU
_l
CQ
i.
£*.
" u
Q.-0
x
i « ;
if;
cc/i
i—>
rp I
d'
o
4->
CO
M-
O
t/5
T3 CO
O) U.
•i— I
CO I—i
107
-------
a<
o
2£ "O
8 -
0 *
>- u
u
en
CO
UJ
CJ
?!«(- -P
£ tc
•lo u
IJS'E
I* £J
I '£
I 2
'D. O
> CU
1
II U
CO
O J-
CU
CD
03 -a
03 cu
o E
$_ T- -p res -a
OJ
to cu cu
•p cu to s— -E
CU
-
S- 03 W)
T3 E -P -I-
03 E E i—
O.E O O.Q
•P U O -i- as
•P -P
•O res «» rcf to
O a) S- Q)
.E (D Ol O
$3 E Cl— -P
cu -r- res o o
s: E s- o E
cu
t/5
03
to
4->
res
cu
cu
cu
I 3 •
cu O-.E:
"O •!— D>
•i- C 3
3 .£= O
01 O C
CU CU
c/> •)->
c -a
O I O
•r- O
-t-> in 01
to cu
CU E -t-5
3 -i- O
_1 CU I
U. > O)
O
res -a E
COr
fO CU
CU 3 T3 •)->
CU
> 3
res
o
CU -P -I-5
-a — i. cu •
n3 E Ol O E CU
E 01 E Q- 3 •«->
•r— CU O (/) r— <0
X 3
CU U
r— O
Q. tO
O r- E 0--r- O
E Q. •
res E to
to cu
o o to "O
E O res o
cu
cu
73
O E
E cu
cu
CU T3
CO
S- S- E O-
•i-l O -t->
CU CU CU to Q.
T3 -P -V O5 to O.
•i- 03 S- E 3 03
3 3 O 03 03 E
2 -.
CD
CD
i— res •
CU S- CU
-O S- 4-»
O CU res
a> o
•»-> • cu
res -a s~
-a o s- to
•r--0 O E
cu o o
E -1- -P CU
.r- ,_ O -P
•F- E res
J3 -O
•r- CU •!-
to > r-
res cu E -i— T- res res
o
cu
-a
-a cu
CU T3
•P CU
res CU
-a E
^ cu
res S-
>• res
o
o •
o
i— E
res t— t
•P
E «
CU CU i
•a i—
•i— re$
O .E
O CO
CVJ
O
o i
res Q
CU
cu
cu
> r^
•r- IO
CtL CM
•P Q
r— I
res >
t/5 i—i
•P
o
cu
CU
> co
•r- CO
a; CM
•p a
res >•
CO i—I
3 O
a> co
res o r-
E •!- CM
o > i
N s- a
•r- CU I
s- oo >
•=C H-1
03
O
CT>
O S- CO
£ o i
•r- CU' U_ I— U_
o i— i co i
03 UJ > LLl >
O
CJ
108
-------
CO
t—
LU
O
u_
o
en
CO
j!
'!
1
|
]
. 1
!
f
1
i;
-.-!
1
Technical Guidance
I
C
0. 0
• o c +»
'. • CM OH- :
CO C W
in «i- E o>
COD 3 0) C
« «« s-
• 0) S. 3 O *
w o+J « 1
o-^c'c^
C§-^-^E> ||'
:-St
s-
o
•«-»
• ' - - ^ • .
Oi — — 4JO i— OJ I
•i— IO O S- 3 W) C OJ i— II
** ° i ^ 2 P, TI : -0 jQ
C ••- 3 E J= 0 V- -r- RJ
SSl°"rT" Qi 3 DC "O •>— C " ~ ' -' n ^ II
°imi£si z*
•^ Q-*-» 1
1 fiiS°- °ls
o-o v-o5^^ •^«oo-M
cs. S 3£i -s-sc-
423 ° jl £?>5- "Q S5
ol - s ti^ici 5^||
s-o cocurtjocoja zw»ja>
. . . . o • „ . o . J
"o.
CU o3
S -g %« -^
•^ ^ c - . Q W if
£ 5 a. -- g| a, ^
i"- 1- ia --si.- =!a Is %
512 I&S ^S |f|4- |14 fc4 si4
! Is l-i ^s l«i.S£i ^ s-s i
8
109
-------
UJ
o
u_
CO
cu
•«-> I
w» to x
, E
-
a>
"t>
01 CO E E
• O O.
o
01 o
-a i-
s- +J
ca U
•o a>
4J O CU
c/) o
CU
-a
cu
cu
cu
CU
CU
CO
CU
I iff
o
CU
-O CU
CU >
CU OI
t/> a) t/> •
E 4-> cu >>
o ca E s-
•i- 3 ••— co
01 CTr— c/>
•r- CU O) t/1
w)
u
•»-> >>
Dl
•se
CLi
(DE
o 2
c/> O
••- E
a>
I C E C
(A O
(O O
D. O
*;o a
Ol'r— t/J
3 4-> 0)
O ET3 O
S- 3 r— E
3 CO
>>0) 0-0
O)
o>
cu
01
O)
o>
4J o
«o •»->
•o
•r- T3 U1
i— O) O)
«C (/) O>
> 3 E
(O
C
O
0}
O)
5-
i —
^= X> to
CO QJ CVJ
ta i
a. Q
fO
o
CO O
CD CO
-r— -O I
3 Q
CU
M
o
o
01
Oi
CU I/)
O =3
01 CO
a> s- LO
ZJ O) I
cn-t-» a
Q
-CJ)
cu
if- o
O CO
in «—i
CU S- i—1
3 CU I
cn-t-> o
CO O I
cu > >•
cu
N
CJ CO
-o i
cu :
cu
110
-------
oo
t— a>
z u
LJJ C
S CO
s -a
O H—
0 3
CJ
U-
° «
>- O
ce -i-
^"(0
m °
CO •!—
—I C
.c
u
0)
4J
a
o
1 •*•>
E
o
s
OT 1
UJ - cr
^ c
CO II -i—
« I
s.
t"
'
^^
a.
•o
3'
o
^C;
C? (/) ^5
^^ «^» *l -- Jj
S- • .C CO
O to Q-tO
o to o +^ •
•as- jet- 4J
•o
ja
§ 0
S- (U
3 •
tS— O)
<££
8 "c
ens-
oca
•
S£ c/>
gs
C7> 3 *CO S- n-
1 CO «,— «»- S- 3«t-
r— S- O- O t» T-
O) CU <1) **- CO ** '
C S- -4-» O C ffl C
•f- 3 "1^ *r- $->S-« E
CO O"O "^ r— r— 1- C«/>
U_M_ CEO- O>4-> •»- «/>
I +J .C W "P- *r- +*
O) C -»-> O oB S-Cr-C+>
C 3 S_ -r-OJO-OO
.1— OO •> •> U- <1) E O
O^l C
1 -r-
3S> 3
C/li— I CD
Northern
IV-D-143
0-
•o
5-
03
O
CD
10
00
CD ^D ^^*
O) 0) t-t
CO Q
-r-COS*
O) Q
E -C 1
ST HH
0
d)
• CO
ceo
LU C
* O
O4-> O> O
•r- S- CM
• i— O 1
•)-> CO O
Q.3M- 1.
cuo- o >
Q H-l
O
C
^»
American Mir
to
to cn
O> CM
S-CM
O) 1
S=Q
0 1
o >
1— 1
o • 1
0
tooo
toco
— «
•o
3
O
O
111
-------
II
1 fe
It
[1
ijo^
H rj^
iu t!
PI
(J
i 01
1 **
1
t— a> •!'
S C |
^ 13 ! CJ
SUMMARY OF CO!
Technical Guii
ajry-.+uaag xesmsssss
Monitorin
O> j
CO
uj ; a
g "
£ 1 '3
i -C
T: —
|to. c
ji Q) C_
.' C C
!' O J-
jj
!
!
i
i
** .
:J s.
.» a
t C
i c
! I
. c
•
•
CO
O -Q
1 "O
M-.C
o en
* •
Wl Q} ^CJ
'co'o.E
cot
CO CO O
a. O.M- _____
1 ,5 Jf&c | ws |
e£ s- s- 3 o-c to to •*-> ,I£.a* • +3
) Eego.**" Ct/J 3 en -P •«-> ^5*- O •
*" •«- °-,_ i o^ oto "gi^^
IflliHsfi ^ .:?f;i
i^8s «is:i jii |:§i|
g|?l? Sills ill I?«l?
i 0 " 00
>
o
« CJ
•r"
h o
<•> 'il
co +3
* C fe « ^^
j *l~ g« 5S ms
•£r2evj fcEj ^ ^cv,
- *l— — -i f\ ^.Q X Q r* ^
E _ __ , . — • | ^^ | ^Z 1
3 .^: §>. S!> s> *>
> >. i-< eC>-" ^ *— '
fll > r~ *^
S- C Q. en +J
en co 0 • E -r- 0
•t— en en O +•* c:
• en en ••-> 0 to
ni nj 4-5 c •!-*••> •
coc:en 01
• -r- cu •«-! -P
r— jz c 3 to en co
o o s--e • >>•—
-a c a-+» Ct— a-
.r-coEen-UtatoE
• 3^:oc:oi — co
CJJ +•> t_3 -r- C Q. CO O
0 C
•r--r- X
-a co
+>r O-i-
s-?»?
c en s- s-
CO-r- > 4J
CJ
•a
r—
CO
^
o
+J fO CO
C Q. 1
to E Q
i— O 1
4-J 0 >
•r-= Q.
p- Ji^ 3
tO O
> 0 CO
.a -»->
S-J^i CO
0 3 •
C03E O E
i— -a o
CO CO >»LO
-O •»-> r—
O to C O
s ~o o +•»
' ic
•r- a; Q o
O r— 1 o
eaia>- [^,
Cu i— i 1
112
-------
UJ
o
u_
o
a>
u
c
U
CU
I
oo
LU
i «
I -C
o
!
1
i
• ">
"o
o
'I: t_i
,*+•• .^nf
o
j*: "ro
u u
ra T-
] — -1 C
| 1
i|
cn
, c
•r—
£-
O
. 4-5
• P—
C
o
en
E
1
-j C
Q. O
CU CJ
o "-^
c o
0 S-
O D-
-1
! =
;i
j;*
'•',. C_
. • '
f
•o -a
Can a reliable
model be develope
Can local terrain
problems be solve
Can chemical
changes be accom-
modated?
O_
1 O CU
•Or- 4->
> to -to
s- s- > +->
CU 3 -I— OO
to -)-> Q
E lO "
O "Z. *> • -
O to 4-> «— '
3 CU OO
» E O • -Z. 1
+•> O to > Q
O.-,- CU E H- 1
cu -4-> cc: uj o >
Q •— •
•g-»' cS ^ • TI -
•r- OO -OES-3
J2 . — E rtJ E »— 0 <0 0
3X1CUE 3CUJ=
O- • "r— E "r* "O • O "O CO CO
CU to 3 E >>-E CU CU
-OEtoS-H-fO-PtOCOS- CO . •
i — -i— O •*-* O "T— > O >->-O Cn CO)
o cu E cu +•> «i— cn E •!- 3
JC "O CU -i— CO -r- S- CU CU -r- i — to
to -r- jQ 3 i — •«-> •!-> ^Q O CU CO
3 .E fO ••— O fO" . C7> "O -r-
rf o>-l-> 4-> O JD CU i- -J-5 1 '*r-
Q_ O T- CU -r- p— +-> O E 3 CU
UJ(OE3.OtOCUC/)EO O -Q
4-> "^
CU ~O to 2
4-> r— « to 3 CU 2
10 3 -O - C3-JD -*=
, — o cu cn cu w
if— f cj cn "O
= OtOE-r-CUi— 5(>*
.M CU S- to 3 5H^3
OEtoS-CQ-r-0 ^SJ
55l-«S+-s-5 -^
\s to CU CU CO CU • CU to
S- T- E S- CU E E -0 , -0 -r-
o>s_4->3ocu -g
3cu3cu(Oi — T- to ^2;
= i- 1— JD _ 1 0.4J 3 «? -0
0 0 Q_
S-
CU
3
o
•°- . ' M
s- "C
S >, - «
•^"^ ^j* ' /"""I ^J
«"§§ S- *P
j^j s f— , i QT] l C// r^ i
2SS ^.S 1SS
"a. i-i => "-1 Q I-H
-o
r~*
3
O
.E
CO
CO •
CU "O
c: LO
r— oo
CU 1
U 1
cu •=•
i i— H-4
-o
cu
-^
E
•r—
•!->
E
O
O
113
-------
UJ
s ^
O 'I-
cj a
u. «
0 15
>- u
CT>
I
CO
UJ
J±
o
(A
C
U_ 4J
O
U (J
n? «r-
-J C.
JC
u
a
CP
•r™
t.
o
•p
"l-"
o
<•*.
CO
c
|H
cu
•a
o
?-^
•P E
Q. O
CJ O
c o
O S-
O O.
.,
J—
CU
c;
g
o
0
•
1
*=• '
Er— S- 4-> O CO
0 03 CU 0 CU E
t- E ~O ' eC E *r-
3 E E 03 E •
O -r- 4- O E
J= 03 t— O CU E 03
W CU 4-> S-
cu -a cr> 03 cu co
«C 4-> .r- <-H CU >• O
O- 03 3 CO S- -i— S—
LU co own cj> 4-> Q.
Q_ D-
E
O
S- • S-
O *P *i—
•p *^ >
U CU E
CU O LU
S- >> S-
•t- 03 i- -E CU
Q -I— -P 03 -P
E to -P E
" S- CU <3- ^3 CU
E O S- >— 1 CJ LO
CU 4- O CM *• CM
E -i- U_ | to -P 1
Or- Q If} C Q
W O3 *f— I •!— CU 1
CUO 0 > r— E >
a. i— i aa i— c
•P >^ o • i •• i
COS-CO S-'jE S-CU T3
§O O- E 3COOS--"CUN i —
r— 't- OECUCUIOT303 3
OS-S- -i--P>CU'03JC O
4-EOO 4-S- OOO OJ=
OJE4--P OOCOOS-S-4- -i- to
O-r- -PE 3J3OJ=
CUCUCUE CU-i-T-OO Q.CU
to -P i— 0 • toEO-PtoCUE 033- X
3 _aEE 3O03 jc:o s- cr-a
E0303 ES-tOCU-PT-CO-r-CU
tns-i— -as- to -Pcur— -P oEto
CUCU-r-CUCO CU-P 3COQO3 -PJE3
COT3 03 to O CO E.-a CT E to CU O O
S-O>OS- S-CUE-r-T-i — S- -ECUCU
ZD E fO Q- Q- ^}S-o3Et/>03O Q--PJ3
•— cu
cu s-
•a o
O E
E
1
==C c/> cu
CO- r—
l— .a
cuo: 03
U LU U
03 -r-
Q.-P a.
cu-r- a.
Q; s 03
a. a. D-
E E
CU CU E
N N CU
•n- E -r- N
-P CU -P •!-
•r— Isl .,-40
CJ •!- CJ) •!-
4_3 tJ
** vo *r~ co . ** c^ ^«o r**»
TD^ CJ"vf . i-(T> "CO t— l
ECO CM 1 El CU 1 1
r— Q T3Q EQ J^Q Q
O 1 -i- 1 -1-1 p— 1 1— 1
S-> OJ> ^«i5» OS^Qi^
I — i — i Qi i — i CO t — l 12 i — i LU l — l
T3*
cu
E
*r"7
E
O
O
114
-------
LU
O
O
O
>-
U
c
to
•a
JO
U
U
CU
co
QQ
S-
OJ
o
r—
o
0
t»- -p
o
U U
—1 E
U
CO
-p
a
t^
S-
o
•
•r™
c
o
^^
O1
E
•r~
r—
cu
-o
o
-P C
O. 0
SN.
E O
0 S-
o a.
• *
$_
cu
E
o
•
^
vi cu
cu s-
O-i-
S- 3
3 cr
o cu
CO S-
S- CU
oja
•r-}
3
i— O
" i — .E
*£. CO
O-
E
cu
Nl
•i—
•P
•r-
<_>
"CO
14
i- ^»
Ot-i
- '
-a
cu c
•P 0
(O O
o «n
CU T-
• o -p co •
CU .a
cu 3 • o cr en
c en in -i— «/i
E O
CO CU ~O -E Q.
S— S— • cu o
O O CU CU CO
S S '• Z +> IB
•
r— X X X X
-a . .
£=
0
ex a- Q- Q_ a. o_
E
CU E
Nl CU
•i- N E
E -P ••- E CU
CU •!— -P CU Nl
Nl C_3 - -r- N E -i-
•i- E CJ -i- • Q) -4->
-P " CU -P Nl -1-
•r- T3 IM •« T- -r- O
CJ •— -r- ^= 0 -P
CU -P cn M- "
"CM -i— i— 1 -i-VO 3l-~- "«-« COCM S-t-i
ECO<+--5f C_JLO OLO 5-VO «3 OJCM
re i cn i i i- i cut "i -PI
CnQ EQ "Q J3 C3 E Q CU Q E U-
i-i resi si s-i s-i >•>! cui
^C i — * OO i — i "ZZ i — < >- i — i C3 i — i Li- i — ' CD *— i
_
'
I
I!
i
*
•p
o
CO -P
CU O
1 3 JC
cu cr Q.
S- -r- CU
E r-
E CO -E CU
CU -P O -P
•P cn
en E CU
E cu &- -a
cu S- cu *i —
S«- «r™ f~ j/) i!
•P 3 -P CU i
oo cr o ja
E
•
"O CO
0) S-
•P O
(O ^—
•o s-
•t- CU •
(O CU CU
> s -o
E O' O
=3 00 E
CJ
S-
cu <•
a. co
fO CM
E a. ii
CU S- Q
N i— CU 1
•r- (C -P >•
•P E E v-i
•r- O i — I
CJ -r- r-
CTi -P LO r~ fl3
"CO (C CM r— E
CU i— 1 E CM CU O
CU 1 S- 1 S T-
"O CD CU Q NX ^
S- 1 +J 1 O fO
res > E > o E
Q_ I— I I — I I — I C£
-a
a;
3
E
O
O
115
-------
CO
UJ
ct:
en
CO
LU
cu
U
tz
m
•o
5
C3
o
<4- -r- S-
O il~ CU
CO
• n
-P i- CU
Q. O 4- tO
CU •«— -r- CT>
Q S- r— CM
cu -o i
• -P •— Q
CO E T- 1
• H-H 3 >
ZD i— i
01
E
cu
0 •
E -0
to cu
-a s-
3 3
co cr
cu
CU £-
S-
Q CU
^" o
»
•^j
CU
CU •!—
0 3
C O*"
(O CU
-o s-
3 CU
01J2
CU -P
i- 01
O 3
O
-a o
E to
tO 01
•=c
01
x^x f
S- 0
(O •!-
Q_ -P
(O
i— > r~
to s- r~-
E CU CM
O O1 1
•r- C Q
•P O 1
tO CJ >
2: i— i
S- •
O 01
•P E CU
•r- O E
2EECU
01 CU -r-
CU > 3
CU -i- cr
S- -01 CU
CO E S-
CO CU
01 Q. CO
•r- X E
Q CU -r-
t|—
0
. 1-
o cu
O -P
01 CU
0
l — U-
ta to
E CU i— 1
O -P 1
•r-
2C i — '
CU CO
co en E
E fO fr-
•r- E E
r— (O S-
CU E 3
'^j ^^
0 0
cu
S--0 J3
CU CU •!-
-P 01 S.
3 3 O
D- 01
E -P CU
O O S-
O E O.
O
01
CU
U— O
0 S-
3
• 0
-P 01
a. cu
CU C£
Q
r— O
(O (O ^J"
E S- CM
tO 3 1
•P -P Q
o 2: >
cu
•r—
01
E
cu
Q.
X
cu
. o
o
1—
01
cu cu
3 O 01 01
CT E 01 E
•r~ 03 CU CO
E o -a s- i—
.E -P •«- T3 Q.
o 3 -a
CU CU CD CO CU
-Pi— en
o -P E
M- (O • O fB
O O E E S-
•t- O
CU i — co 01 cn
E 0. CU CU E
O Q. S- O O
z: co o "O r—
c_?
4— •
o
-p la
Q.-P
O) E
Q CU
01 E >,CM
- o -P oo
E i- -i- CO
O v- i — 1
cn > ca Q
CO E 3 1
s- LU o->.
O HH
•
cu
o
CO
•a
•r-
3 -• -N
cnT3
CU .
QJ T3
^ QJ
C3 QJ
O
o3
J= t- -E
fO CU ^
•PS P
rD o rD
Q..
tt tj . ]
o co o ai o cr>
CM •!- -P CM CM
O) 1 4- JZ 1 CU 1
•P U- -r- O)U_ -P O
rO 1 O -i- 1 n3 1
P > (0 _J > -P >
CO i— < CL. i — i CO i — i
-o"
a>
E
•r—
P
E
O
o
116
-------
co
|_ CD
Z U
UJ C.
•z. to
"s -o
O ••!-
0 3
C3
u_
O r—
CTJ
>- O
Q£. 'r-
$ e
zz» «.
c o
0 S-
0 0-
L
a
c
<
£
C
1 1
S- S- C 1
• O O to -i—
•a a) -P E c
O 4-> -i- 3 O
o a> E .c: E
en E o
E T3 E
>, •
rcf E O a. en
S- -r- OJ C
«/j
I O CL)
] ^ ^_ "T3
5- S- O
o UJ E
en LU
. •=> xx
in >.
3 enzD
o c: — i
•1- •!- Q-
i- E
O) O C
oo o •!-
D_ a.
(O
>
c s-
(1) d)
T> o
•i- C_5 t—
LO •* *O
c\j ^ *%i" o c«5 c
CO ^>^D ^- r^
co ^" *o ^> o *p ^=>
r~i i — i CD i — i D_ i— i
XX X X
x x
o_ a. CL. a_
£=
CL)
C Q) -r—
CD N -P •
g J •£ '-P 0
M 4-> v-
•1— •!— O « '
-t-> C_J >5
C^J T*H LiJ £-. ^Xl 1™ >i;
r^* V5 r^** ^o oo •!*" ot
*\x fTTt QJ r "^ C f^) ^" t— -
res i > i cu i o i
o i— i a: i— i CQ i— i i— I-H
X X
Q-
E
cu
•r—
•P
O
»*
c c
f^ 1 ^3 *r** 1
CL) ^> i ^ ( t ^^
co i— < co i— i
-a
-------
CO
CU
O
res
t/i -p
•r- (0
M- -P
u u
(0 T-
O
CU
0.4-
c
O -r-
•P
CU
O) -P
S- (O
)_ CU
S o
UJ C
sS *°
o •«-
O 3
CD
O
o
cu
X
•r- 0)
io -a
U- 03
CU
o
I
a> •
<4- -a
O CD
CD
0}
en cu 01
a>:
to
OJ
cu
r- CD
£=•< £=
~
•r- O
3 to OD
(O £Z T-
i— O M-
M- -r- -1-
4J +J
r— O- tfl
10 E 3
•!-» =3 T-J
C 10
CU t/1 -I-1
E fO O
fO C
t3 >,
C £= O)
3 ITS S-
u_ s: re
en
cr>_
UJ
CD
O I
E CD
s- o o c v>
CU O-
en -P
O CO '
•r-j CU T3
cu
X
cu
re)
cu
4->
cu
0
O -c
o
E O
o o
S-T-
. .r- M- CU •
S- 01
>-r-
•i— CU (O T3
C S- C
flli— (TS-i— OCU
rd I
C £= I
CU
td
t3
ta
cu
o co
CM
CU I
-t-> a
oo i— i
cu
to
o
o
.00 •—en
resai
CCM
-a ^: co
c -P i
cu s- u_
•r- fO I
S- LlJ >•
CM
CO
01
(O
C CM
S= I
c co
O I
-P Q
C. I
3 >•
118
-------
CU
O
o
O
>-
13
CO
O
r-1
CO
CQ
«=C
I
•CU
CU
U
S-
3
. O
co
CU
cu
-P
0
05
CU C
> 0
•r— »r-
-P in
•i— in
' i"i
u_ cu
05
•r- -p
-a 3
•i- O
.E S-
C CJ
i-H
.p 05 O .f.
O E E W ,_
•P CU O 05 Q-.r-
E'f E £.£
t/5 CU O5 T- •!—.,_
'o 'D. > 'ro J= £
o e o cu -P >
r- ••- S- -0 -r-
C. 3 .E
0
Inconsistancies
definitions
c
CD fl
a -o
fCJ i—
_J O
o
o
•P C
a. o
CO O
u \
E O
0 £-
o a.
Commenter:
: CU 10 >"> 1 E 05 CU
.EC ^"O u-r- , — C-PO'Q--!-3 • ' — O
, 4^ 33«Q.-PE T3 C «/> "O O-r-
CU'r-05 05OCUO CU >>i— 3 CU CU E -P
CJ3O'CUO>T3Er- -P33.E -r-fO i
S_ O £- ^- •*" ^ r— CUO5 i
tOO053-P3r— Q.XjT--QtOfU
•r- (C 05 -r- r— TD 3 S- T-EXCUrtSOS-
3-PCUEi — i — OOfOCU 05OCUC-P Q-
CU «3 S- O T- -i- S- -E O) ^= T- T- i r- 05 D. E
=Z r— 0 0 JD 3 0- tO >,4-> > -P M- r— CU O -r-
...
1 01-
CU •!-* •••
cu E s: a>
-a E s IE
r— CU U_ CU CU
3 r— Q- .O -E
Or- M- -!->
.E t/5 Di tO t/5
0 0 00-
ii
a> a> c: ' j!
i = -a
= -^
13 O SI ••— i
E CJ <-> 1
3 >> '
0 -P E >, "
00 J= CU E 05
rn O5LT5 ^: (C IO -P CO
1 4-) -r- 1 05 Q. 1 S- 1 1
l— U_ CU_1C_) CUEOCUO
CO | 05 1 i— O 1 J3 1 i
LLJ> 3o3>> i— CJ)> O >>
^M Q.I— 1
-------
CD
q- p cu ^
-p o o >>s_ -P
CD
O5-P
•I— -I— O T- -I—
in > -
£= CU >> -P
cu OJ
cu
UJ
•P CU
•—r- .a
3 3 T- -P U
o •
in CU
CU -i-
(O-
OJ
.
CD
-4U-
EI 'i— (O
cu c
> o
•I— •!—
P in
3 E
i— • E s-
TD O O -I- -P in -O CU •
CUT3 O O>
en o .3 cu
-P i
•P ^:
•r- P
-a 3:
•i- O
e c
"O CO
r— S- -i- I
<»- 3 O -P S- O.
o o
O >> 0)
.
-P O
(O > 3 OJ -P
i— a> -a > c
cu s-
a>
_
u- -a Q.-I- -a
P U)
o c c
P-P
U-
COr
P CO O O) O.-I-
E-r- C E-Q
CO l/> -r- 'i—i-
n~ »r- r— C/)
O P. > 03 JC'i-
O E O O) P >
I— -c- t- -a -r-
CD
S- IM
o >>
M- i—
*r-
O C
E O
(O -r-
CU
O ttJ
U
cu
-
o cu cu
-P O C S-
O
_i -p c cu ~a
S- U_ O T- O CU
s- ~a
cu s- -1-3 -P 3 cu
r— O -Q •!- O CU
o <4- o E to c
•P C
a. o
cu ~
u
E O
O f-
O Q.
D.
cu
o
(O O
cu
o oo
O I
to o
cu
•p cu
Q. O CM
cu s- -=d-
Q CU CM
OO O I
« o >*
•« -a
';; cu
o
120
-------
to
I—
UJ
o
o
a:
o
a
o
CO
CD
I
OO
LU
_ I
CO
-P
o
10
O) C
> 0
•P W
•i- U5
DJ-r-
=J S
U. HI
01
•P -C
•i- 4J
-Q 3
•r- O
-P -P
•P 01 U -i-
O C C <0 i—
CU O D5 Q.T-
S -i- C E -O
01 O) 01 T- T- T-
o 'o. > rfB x: •;-
o e o o> -P >
•r- S- T3 •!-
c. 3 S
01
o>
•r- Ul
u zr
c o
ro ••-
O) •!-
•r- C
01
c <*-
o cu
u -a
0 (0
O T3
(«• i-
_J O
c
o. o
a>
c
o
CJ Q-
O)
-M
S-
cu
"O
O 0 -OO
3 oicus-oo •r--p-^:aj"OT-O
q-t/jojcncus- oi+->totn-QOJto
OJ>C:T--PC:CUT- 01 • — c/>
<_5>r— fdWCfOQ- CD-I- T3-Pr— -r-O
O-r-fOi— (OO.E>j3ECOiO
c -o
cu >j c
cu
• aj-r-s- -1-3
O-POCOJO
-p Q. £= c:
•r- O v- S-
o ,— a;
•r- CU -P -P •
jc > c to oo
c cu cu cu •
0
<->
«=c
CJ
o
c_>
14
•a
cu
o
o
121
-------
ut
0
4-> to
•r- in
a'i
U_ Q)
U_ I/) CXT3 Q) O O) O.'i
S •!— C E J
I W> QJ t/l v- V— •
I— -I- I— C/J
I o a. > "3 -= ••-
o E o co •<-> >
•r- 5- "O •!-
0)
•i— tr
u =
c o
m ••-
•p
in T-
C
O 0)
(J
I
CO
LU
O
as
-P
CL
0> i
3
S- -Q
r— CU
(O •)->
c re
c
o
-a
eu
o
(O
I CU
c: r- •
•r- J3 >>
-|-> .r- -P
3 O Q-i—
CU
o >
S- (U
O
c:
re
s-
. _ o cu
£0 en
s- -P E:
O- 3 C ,rd
a. o cu Uz
cu
s- «t-
o -a
4-> O)
o cu •*->
•a -i- to
r— CU i— •—
3 s- to cu
o -i- > "a
.c: 3 c: g
co a" 3 E
E C
-o • s- o
r- S- CU •!-
re
CU •!- I—
> > o-
re cu a.
^: s- re
cu
•o
cu
cu
= -i-> en cu
+-> O~^ >
o E r-. i—
re o o
0.^-^00 co
E ja • cu
.r-« -- ,-) S-
i — in P—
cu o " — to
tV) CO r— CU
$_ . . -r- -P
CU r-l S- 3 3
> un re Q-
•o cu o
r -r- O
to
o •
> s-
-I- cu
en 3
o
o Q-
cu
to
o -
O
10 +->
> s- cu
re >
cu
.
O. O Q -- 1
CD C eC li-
00 C LU
so cu
to'-P •
cu re to ~o
to en cu i—
O CU -I-5 3
Q.I— re o
Q. CU -P -E
O T3 OO tO
cu
en E
to s-
o>
•P Q- •
to "O
3 CU CU
E S- -P
O C
2: 4- re
±3 cu s-
LJL. _Q en '
C_5
GO a
•=c i
o >
o
to
• cu
+j p
Q. S-
a
co re i
cu
•i- en
o o
t-H
•< i
to Q
CU
cu
•r—
•P
•r-
CJ
• "CD
CO CO
S- I
cu a
If~) I
o •>•
cu
•t- 00
O r-t
I
CO
a.
o
^:
to
_^:
o
3 o
-a
to re
to s-
cu o t^.
C r— CO
S- O «-l
CU CJ I
-a a
i— 4- I
•r- O >•
-a
cu
c:
c.
o
o
122
-------
•— >5
o
o
ce:
CO
o
1-H
oo
LU
CQ
«=C
on
CO
u
3
O
cu
re
re
1 U> .Q
3 i re re •
, . o
' -P in
•i— in
O3v-
3 E
u_ cu
in
-P -C
•r- 4J
^ 3*
•i- O
"S CT
i — I
>,
-P in u T-
o c c re r—
•P CU O D) Q-T-
E •<- c E .a
in cu in T- T- T-
i — r— •!— .-- t/5
o Q. > re >c T-
o s o o> -P >
1— •!- S_ -O -r-
"10
CO
•i- in
u e
c o
in ••—
to -r^
C M-
o cu
o ~a
c.
i— i
E
O
<*— -P
o re
E
0^0
(O i-
—1 O
c
•P C
a. o
CU 0
o \
c o
O S-
c_> o«
Commenter:
o cu o s- > E -P 4-> -i-
re i — tn E s- "o •
o M- E E re
•r- J2 0 -r- S- S-
r— -r- T- re -P r- «O 'O Q.
i re s-
s- s- o
re cu -P
Q. "O re
cu « > tn
_E • re ?i— -P •<—
tn n. tn . , .
•t— T- tn • S
2: o ,o T- cn ;
_1 -r- CU .E CU .
u_ -p -a i— s-
, ' " ".''•''. .•-'•"'/ • ;'','"'•
!:• -
0 -P 0 -P
•P T— , -P -r-
^ C cu •— C cu
3 >> Q- 3 >> Q.
tn cu tn cu
> 2: > >
__i re cu —i re cu
u_ ^: s- u_ ^: s-
CU 1
tn >> i
re i — i-
o re -P s-
E 3 0
re re o .
j= o c • ;
t/) CU -P -i— •«— CU
CU tn -r- <4- . O
t/) re 3 M— re E
o o o -i— re
a. i tn cu s- >
C- >>T- 0- CUt3
O ^3 tn tn -P re
J2 -PV
•i- O
•OS-'
•— O Q)
3^: o
O -P E
tn re 3 •
t/j -P
cu i — tn -i—
-p re-^ E
re E s-
•P •.- E CU
CO M-! T- Q.
Q. . CO 0- 0
c •
E -^ c: Q.
cu E cu s-
^ £ 2 8
.if 3 4f . • •«.
O " O CU
r< s- oo r-~ CD •*
«V*H- o to ** to o r^-
Ei— 1 E <-l -P i-H S i— 1
01 S- 1 -r- 1 - II
•i-O CUQ +->Q S-Q
re> o> "cu> cu>
Si—I O>— i Q-i-H ^^ i—i
0 -P
*^~ *^~
tn 5
U CU cu
CU -Q -P
-a re
-a -P
i— r— CO
• re 3 i
E O CU 1
iZ tn -p
o a.
'
i
o •
0 4- !
S- tn i— ^
cu cu re ^
3 P° ^
O *- -3
Q. 3 M- 2
LO o p r~- .jr
re r^» tn ^* f jj
E r-i CU T3 1-1 Tl
re i D: J-i 1 §
-p a re a X
El S- O 1 ^,
O > -i- CQ >
SH-< «C •-•
123
-------
1 o e o
11
11
11
It
11
1
1
II
1-
s-
(!)
O
in
0) C
> 0
•P CO
•I— CO
CO'r-
3 £
U. CU
in
•P J=
•I™ «f"
^2 5
•f- O
_c s-
c a
I-H
>,
•p +*
u >r~
nj-—
en CL-J-
C £ *
'^•^'w
ft) -C 'IT-
CU -P >
CO
CU
•r- cn
U C.
a o
10 •!-
•P -P
CO •!-
Cti
1
0 0)
0 T3
C
1— 1
C
o
•1
O i
1
CJ-i
nj S-
_j a
<
i
-P C.
a. o
CO CJ
u •->
c o
o s-
CJ Q-
s-
a
£
C
CJ
•
•P
CD S-«=C
o CU
-a cu
•P c^:
O 3 -P
-a ti-
-o cu o
's CU«C
0 >CD
.E OCO
CO O t-H
1 ~O
CO CU
CU >
O r—
CO O
c >
c c
CO >5
•I—
s: s-
_] (O
U- CO
.-p*
CO-r-
CDr-
CO-r-
S-J2
O CO
OO-r-
Q- >
•P-P
C O
CD CU
to-P
a, CD
Q- Q.
5S
S
-P •!-
0 >
CO CO
•r-j S-
3 CU
. CO O
Sources
new sou
_a cu
3 -P
to
r- «J*-^-i- > C CU
03 CO COM- r— S-
•r- CU C -I- 3 CO C CU
Ci— -r-i— coCUrtSO
J= J3 S- CU S- S- S-
CJ O O ~O -P S- 3
CU5--POO>>(00
1— 0,-r- E C r— 3 CO
•
a. o
-
a
o 01
c .c
—
ft «p—
. % ^^
S- co
o co c co cn
CL.cn (O cu CM
n- <-< 0 S- CM
•i- 1 *r- Cn 1
O Q S- £= Q
1 CU O 1
0 > E 0 >
^ i— i eC i — '
CJ)
o3
CU rO
~3- O-
O E
0
E
CU
g
-p
cu
D_ CU
Q- 0 +J
O O C 3 CO
O «* to +^ •*
.,_ 4J CM O -I- CM
q- x: 1 -1- -P 1
•r- cna s- to Q
O •!-
(0 —1
Q-
i — i •
=-
-1
!i CD
i! I
1 0/1
-------
s:
o
cu
. 0)
o
-P in
: "H
1 1 cu
in
•p -e
-S 3
•r- 0
>— t
implement
provisions
dealing
with impact
on visibility
in
CU
U C
c o
re -f-
in -i-
•T- C
^D (^
£Z
^.^ .,_
u -o
(^ t»
—I O
o
u
4-> C
Q. 0
CO 0
u \
C 0
0 i-
o o.
• . ,
^_
CD
^
CO
~
Q
cu
o •
O.SI
g— 1 1
u
3 CU
E JE
o
o o
1 1
CU lO CU
f) j"") ^—
CU 3 .
T3 CO S- D5
r— C
3 n3 CU-r-
O -P -iii
.C C , •
0 -P 0 S- i—
X3 i — CO CO fO O
r— cu e: s-
3 > i — CO O -P
O CU 0 l r- E
J= X3 S- -r- -P O
to -P ^a « o
0 E O -P
CO -P O E to CU
cu o o
4J CU . S- S- .
«3 CU E Cn CU 3 •
•p s- 3 • > a
CO M- O CU O to
•P X3 X3 JZ CU 4— 1 ICJ) O 'i— CU >>
O CU CO -P .E 'r— E •"— «COE « c- rnj-a c- j->
E "P "P "P E "i^ CO CU CU fO E 3 E "P "r-*
EEO Oi -r- r— .E O to M- •!- -i- i—
r— OO EtOi — -P«r- O.EECO J3
3OO>,CU -P-PT--PtO-i- 3CUCUT-
O i— -PEEOi— S-coE=tO>S-CO
c** QJ S— C J^ (O fO fO *r*" fO QJ f^ c™ «i— • Q^ "r™*
CO J3 O O CU O CJ Q— Cl CLi — i-H LjJ to -P t- >
'
1 O •
1 CU M- -P T3
-a s- ox? cu
•i- C CD C
3 -P Q. CO >> O T-
O> 3 T- -P C E
O -C 1— T- to S-
M- J3 tOC_)i— E CU
O (C C E -0
'
O
<=C oo
*"v r^«
U_ C\J
z:. i
**^ ***^
i — i i
Q- >
1
cu
E (0 «
•i— S- CU
•p •p *p
(O CO (O
•p -p
Or— CO
•i- O
xj s- o
-j-^ ^_>
>
LU o cn
o
•
o
E CT>
i— < r^^
CM
•> 1
X Q
•^C I
^" ^«
cC ' — i
O =
O . • -P
+J E CO E
^ o to cu
•P -P CU >>
0-,- > CD
«^=,.-a -r^
• >££ •'[ — " QJ
•j— ; : ^)- -- " •
•'•''•••aT" (O 3 CU
XJ 0 OM-
= -^ co cu
o
cu
i— S-
O CU >j
i- 00 -P
n3 T- OJ
0 0 S- CO
•r- O CM
^: r— .E i
•p ^^ -p f~^1
3331
O Q- eC >
CO i— i
cu
3
c
I
125
-------
CU
E re _i 4->
O E -O U- CU O
Q.T- t— -Q Ol
CO U. 3 >> CU
-a CD
(0 .
to & ta -a
I— T3 CU • -E 3
& .— O- CU O O
re
cu
i 4J c: o
4-5
cu-a
• to cu
. et .r- 4-> O U- "O ~O
cu
cu o
O)
_a
> CU Oi
(O ~O
o
4-5 in
3 E
u. cu
S_ v- •!- CU CU > (/I
Or- .apr— C
jr •<- -r- s- o o
E to
(Oea;aS
•r- O
.£= S-
c o
o c c
U -p-
(O t—
cu
O O) O-'r-
E -i- C E ^3
OJ 10 V— "r- -r—
C7)
S- S- fl3
re o 4->
cu
cu
4-> O
o E to re
5 i §"0.
o
u.
Q£
to
co
ui
cu
cu
u
cu
•I— V>
o c
m •<-
o cu
o -a
•»->
o-a
Q. O
CU O
u ^^
c o
o s-
o
o
J3 O
3 O
a. in
re oo
o S-CM
•r- CU I
cu o
o
O)
r— CTl
UJ CO
CM
re i
g.0
re >•
cu
E-r- r-l
S- O CO
cu c: i
cu o
o
126
-------
IS)
LLJ
o
u.
o
•O)
U
'3
-o
01
CD
o
t-H
oo
to • -a
10 CU r—
m o "^
s-
03
-P
O
in
cu c
> o
frn* (/)
CJ5 •f*"
3 E
U. — I
4-> in o -I-
o c c n) i—
-P O) O D) Q. T-
e -r- c E .a
1/5 CO in "r— -r- -i—
1 f— •!— 1 tO
O Q. > to -C T-
O E 0
H- -r- I- TJ •-- ,
^ 3 §
, CO
•1— 01
u s:
.c o
m •.-
-P -P
in •!—
•i- C
10 -t-
E 4-
O CO
o ^o
c
1— 1
. , • ,. c
c
tl nl
o CU OTT3 E E
•r- i— E r— O O
O1 O T- 3 v- Q-
S_ +J o -P -P
tO -P -E > oo //
.,_ H_ CU • 3 i-l -0 E
ECUtOOCU'r— O'r— O
•r- 3 CU T- S- 3 E S- -P S-
M- S- CT.E -P 3 O> O 3 E -P
OO'i—-PfO-P OCUE
•PE i — >
cu to -P
>,=^^s
+? -a -r- a.
-•r™ O^"O ^~\
r— E fO T- i-
•r- -I- tO O
r^ r-™ CU *r™ * '
•r- cu ja > cu cu
to -a i— i—
•r- O O E O 3 • ;
> E -P T- S- S-
cu \
3 •
E Q-
3 tO . ' . .
E-i-
•r--0
E :
•r- S- • .
E O E
4-0
(0 -r-
to +J
CU tO 3 '
E CU i—
•r- O O
4- O to
CU S- CU
Q a. s- .
II >1 1
•P CU O >» •— (O E -i- E CU CU
•r- sI^acucu-PQ-o
tO-P-PQ-tOCU EO.3
>j (O , "r- i- "O -r-
«3 3 "^O "O > T- i— ~O E to •
T3 CT E CU 3 3 S- CU CU =C
CUOtOQCrOOCUr— CTt
oo
^ 1— 1
-o
cu
3
•p
o
o
127
-------
S- -P CL) -P
3 01 •!-
"O "O tO r—
Cl) CD O
•r- «r-
•p Ul
•r-
OJT-
U_ 0) O D) CS-'r-
.r- C
O> 0)
»r~
> 03 f -r-
O (U +-> >
— «r- t- °O «i—
•z.
3
i- i— O) O
3 (O
Q O 3 g-
CO -E O> £=
O- 01 E T-
•o 01 a>
•p I
•p •!- E -P -P o >> 01 >>
CU (O .
01 E
__ O E -P
•r- O CL) (O T-
01 O T3 E
cu o> oi. en s-
(U
•— >)
= • 3 CO 01 O) -P
-P i— 2= O) CO -r-
O O) O O S- r—
'rei -a E s- cu -I-
O-»r— "r— • 3 > .Q
& > E.OT3 -I-
I O to -a •«-> >
j_ -a E E
CO r— IO CJl
> 3 -o o
-f- a> o
•a o •
cC -J= 3
= cn
o -a i
" ~
a>
' -i- O T-
CO r—
•— O.ES--PO)S=Q-
•P .r- S- O
~ 3 O
a>
a> s-
+J > a>
o. o •
Ol C 0}
(^ E
•p-i- ra
Oi— i-
E a-<+-
01 O
o.
0) 00
to o en
E T- CM
o > i
N S- Q
•r-
O)
N
•r- 03
01
>> O) >i
t— D>4->
(O « (O -i—
E 0-3 •—
O CU CVJ
i -- r- E O I
3 > 3 -i- a
cn o- >•
128
CL)
-------
to
(—
LU
O
O
O
>-
•CO
a:
CD
u
3
O
co
I
I
CO
i.
CD
-C
o
in
CU C
> o
-)-> CO
O5'i-
3 S
1 1 Q)
in
+J -C
•r- -4->
.0 3
• • .r- O
1— i
4-> W 0 £
O C C fO r-
•4-J CU O O) G.n-
s — _c _s ja
^ __ B ^^ *r"^
0 CL > '(0 -C .1-
O E O <1) +-> >
1— .r- S- 73 —
0. 3 G
O
U)
CO
•i— in
O C
c o
(B -i-
•r- E
in v-
o cu
O t3
C
E
O
O ^
O ~O
{ f? »•
_1 0
i 0
i U
+J c
o. q
o \
= 0
0 S-
{_} d.
' . •
1 s_
O)
+J
1
i °
cu
1 4-> 1
T3 CU CU (Or-
E CO 4-> E CO -r-
03 E OS S- CU E 03
O 3 0 JQ O) >
CO -i- CTM- O Q. 03
Q. -l-> CU Z CU E
CO n3 T3 E r— O >,
. ^ i —
3 •!- • (O S- •
ECU-aO^O-PE-lJ
CU S- -i- CU CU CU CU T-
co > -M in S- co i —
CUQOOa3Q.-MS-.r-
S-CO S- S-^I Q-'r- O.Q
Ou D- O- Q.Q- fO ^3 -r—
3 0 0 O E
CU .E n» f" *i—
z: co -r-s to i—
0 0
E • CO "CM
S- O <— I O CO
CU O 1 O 1
4-3 CO Q cu >
3 t-i (—1—1
>> s-
1 r— 1 -i—
O CU CU 'I— tO r— CO
Q.I— J3 to i- E +J O -O
•r- (O S- > 'i- E CO E
4-> S 3 3 CTl 0
E CU U CU >> t-H >>
CUcOJ3OE-t->CO CU
S- E «O T--T- -P CU J2
S- to 4-> C|_ ,_ E +J
3S-oocu-r-cu • -I- —>
E s- a: -a
LU en t cu
» s .° 3
E •— '43 CO -r^
CO «3 E CVJ 4->
E 4-> rO 1 E
Q. E i— Q 0
to CU -t-J 1 |U
C_> i— i
129
-------
OO
E 1
• CU E =
•o a i — oo o i "o
"O f f~> O O3 *r— S—
•r- S- >j CU O 00 T-
> "O T3 Q.-P S- -P = OS
O E r— •!- O.
11 °
11 ">
OJ C
> 0
I '-p 'w
II -I- 01
1 Ol'r-
11 ^3 p
I U_ OJ
tn
•P .C
1 'i~ C
•<= t-
1 c a
II M
1 -P -P
•p (A (J •!-
O C C 03 i—
•P CD O O1 O- -i-
E T- C E -Q
j U) Q) W «r- v— -r—
HO "a. > *«5 .e -r-
O E O 0) -P >
}_ .,- S_ -O -r-
CO C. 3 =
fc 3= °
2. ll ^
SB cu I] cu
O cc 1 -i— in
CJ I U C
CU SI CO
U. U fO •!-
O t- -P -P
3 Wr-
>- 0 1 -»jj _C
,- 11 ^" ll
^T" li « »•• T*
^^ rti II ^j "^
*
o —
CO ^
o
Ilj *<-"•<
co 1 o <
H- 1 J"4 ''
°n
O- '
cu o
u >>
c o
o s-
O Q.
j ,
| S-
£
E
cu
-
! £
0
0
O- O E -r- JS«i tO S- -r-
Cd c" CU f*> O3 CU CU
O2: CU tO CD 3 i —
E >, S- v- ^~- 0 -P
E-PO-XMS-CUE
CU CU T- Q- > 03
cn cu S-^-. cu " o o
.,_ 4J .,_ CU O i — O-f-
S- CU S-O.E OJ3 E-r-
CQ.QCt--P 3 CnoS-r- E
I E
•i- O
i/> to
•r- CU •!- CO
> S- .E S- CU i-l
•i- -P 03 .E
q- 03 -0 Q.-P E
O = cu tn E 03
4-> 4-> O <+-
O 03 r- CU 3
•P to S- CU O ~O •—
•r- 03 T3 1 —
-a >> cu cn ,-P = 00 tO
03 -P •!- CU O «-<
•r-i—3 CKO) •
CU i — 03 i — S- -P
^Z -i- 3 03 3 E O
1 — J3 CT > Q.T- eC
E O -Q
CU E ' — o3 1 O
E 03 E O3 E
E r— CU E >} O i —
•i— o3 CU O CT> S- O3
03 JD 3 T- S- -r- -P
rt \ t * ^^> Q) ^> j^T
,j^> l|__ flj (Q J^ J^ QJ
e^ ^3 ,r^ £* Qj QJ E
cu cu
S- tO t/>
O O 3 to
H- .E 03 tO
3O 03
CU O i —
O to t3 -P C_)
E CU r—
03 O 3 CU E
•I— S- O -P T-
S- 3 3 3
> 00 to •!— E
E S- O •
CM C O -P T- to
O T- -t- E -P 03 1
(/) 03 00 O 03 CU
•P to O •— S-
>, S- -r- O 03
03 CU E S- •<-
-O o OJ O > i— '
-
, cu ... _^
J2 -r- 1 -P
00 1 3 r— -P O3 T-
CUCUOOO3O3O1— "C3i —
>• $- •<- r— -r- 0 E T-
+J i — S- E -r- T- C •!—
O i 1-03 CDT3 O C3 to
CU -i- 3 -P CU O •!- CO -r-
•1-3 3O"OOi — E-PQ->
^ j
D-
S-
•P 0
o
cu •
S--P
•r- D-
a cu
Q >,
" iS
CU4- t^ CM
E-i- CU 1
Oi— S- C3
t/) 03 O 1
cucj LJ_ :>
Q- l— 1
0
E
S- •
cu o
•P E
CO l— l
[
O • <— 1
J^ tO 1
t/1 O U-
•i- S- 1
S- CQ >•
r~* *~ ~*
[j
l)
'
(
I
!
/ !
-
ii
i!
j'
'
!
I
,
i
1
T3
cu
il
:P
:i E
; o
o
130
-------
E -P
If) O
•i- OJ
c • -P
CO
H"™ 5
Z fl>
UJ •!-
y >
s: - O
o; . co
off
i s •
=3 Z
v>
•
f"i
r-l
CO
UJ
1
CQ
o
-P U>
•r- IA
3 'E
U_ QJ in »r- -r- -F-
1— I— •!- I— OT
O Q. > (0 JH *^~"
O E O 0> -P >
1— .1- S- -O •!-
d 3: =
o
(A
• Q»
•r- W
0 C.
c o
fO -r-
•p -p
I/) *l^
•t— r~
«/) -r-
c <*-
0 tt)
O "O
c ..
t— 1
•. ' c
It ^_
O (0
sx •!—
. {_} -1C
1 (^
t
•P C
Q. C
0 "v.
c o
0 S-
C_5 Q.
• *
cu
4-9
c
QJ
0
too o
c~ CO ^«-
OD- Q.
r^
>*, ••-
s- -o s
£"3 co
•r- O D-
s- ^: co
s-
O) T3
•a a> •
Qi C 0) >^
CO 3 C 4->
z: ••-
• «P • O i^
>5 t— C >> £= -r- -
•r- - -r- E -r- Q •!-
i — O O) i — CO 01
•^ Q^ ' t- »r~ O- *r~
J3 Q.T- J3 >
•r- «/) 3 •!- ' J=
01 CT 01 -P S-
> £ t > S °
x
x .-..-.
•-.-'-.
s-
o
1
E
•r™*
s"2
o
*o
O)
o
o
o
•p
3
O
o3 ' - • •
CD
c=a: - -
§Q-
UJ . .
fO ^^n, ^^ - ' ^^ - - '
-------
O)
0)
V)
a)
> o
-P (A
•I— U)
DJ-i-
U)
•p
Jd
4-> tO O •
O C C 10 r
P 0) O D) Q.'
E •"- C E -
W CO O) -i- •!- •;
CO
•r-
0)
0)
o
o
to
•/- 01
U
c o
m -i-
w -t-
o
T3
C3
CO
C
o o>
CO 3
O -P
cu
CT C -r-
CO "3 -P ~o
T3 T3 (ft
C. 3 O —1
•r- en o U-
§o^
to
Ct) ~^*f-
•T- en
O) -r-
"O -P
•r- C
3 CD
en E
T3 i—
CD Q-
CU E
S-
O
8
a> •
s- c 4J
§O V)
•r- CU
•O ns i — in
OJ C S- tn
0} -i— (0 O
2: -a LU CL
a>
UD
CM
00
I
Q
Ql-H
o« O
O
c: oo
o i
•»-> C3
£ I
132
-------
O)
0)
CO
to
o
o
CO
LU
S-
cu
^z
^J
o
w
to
J r—
1— 1 fD
c
CO
CO O
JQ -P
re 3
0 T-
tf> S-
01 4->
OS <0
4-
CO E
C CU
•«"• E
to CU
to >
"3 "to rc T3 0
.0 CO 4-> CU S-
ro -i- CO 4-> 4->
4-> E ro CU
CU -i^ E S-
4-> O -e-
O *t- O 4-> 1-
CU O i— CO O
S- t— E 0
I-H 4-> ra Z3 0
O
. .
CU
UJ
CU O
4-3 E
o •»
-a • CM
ro O CO
S- 0 1
o to u.
i — CO 1
OO
C_> 1— I
O 3
1 0 CU
4-> to O • S- •
to T- to 4J -O CU 4->
o to 4J cu > o
O >» to E E CU rO
r— O O •!— CO Q.
-O ro O T- ra E
cu c 4-> en CUM-
S- ro CU S- >
O +•>' O CO ID O
cn«i— en o -i— ' E
•i— 1— • CU S- t- "O O
CU 1— i- Q. CU r— E
o o
1 1 1 r> CQ ^C O -O CJ CU
1
s
CO U
ra CU •
cu s- to
S- E
ro 4-> O
E •!-
to ra 4->
l04-> O
CU i- ra
E 0 S-
S- Q-4->
CU E 4-^
"O «r- O
to cu •!-
O S- 4J
S ra ra
00 0
en •
E
0 O -i-
1 • T-
^i o s- 2:
3 CJ CU
Q- . Q- >,
CU ra E
ra O CO O- CU
C -I— r- 1 •* ^1 • VO
o > i 4-> i en Q. i
IMS-U. 4^0 CUS-0
•i— CU I O 1 i — O 1
S-CO> 0> i—0>
^; 1—1 CO 1—1 eC i— «
i
1 -S
en
E E
•i- CU •
S.? "o
3 en ro
~Q4-> E"
TD O T-
CU E
JD 0
•r- E -r-
S- S- E
0 CU O
to U E
CU E O
S- 0 U
Q- O CU
o
s-
cu
4J
to
El
0
la-
Davidson,
IV-C-9
U E
ra E
CO E
cu ra to co
S_ JD CU 4->
-a s- o -r-
-a 3 S-H-
rO 3 CU
E O E
4-> O CO CU
O -I- ja
E 4-> CU --»
3 r— CO
to J2 -r- 4->
CU -r- J2 CO
o s- o o
Q 4-> E 0
i ...
• j:li'->v. •'•'-.' '';
li'ht " '' " .i 1
ji^;'; ',,..-;';
i"' Irj --. • ..":,* 'J ,•'
f, Ti' • " '''•*• •' ; ' -
!'if ••'.' ['- • '.« 1'.- '
• ''niji.'1 . " *?*.' "*"•-''
o
0
si
4J
o
CU .
UJ O
cr>
E S- CM
O CU 1
0 3 Q
co O 1
3 Q- >
H~" *™"*
.
"
.
[
i
i
1
.'.'.; _ ;'.'< £ ; C,
•'*!"• ':'. -.'.'- ' '• :.
l::i'':j-; i jf ' ' j
f 1 • « ./.i' . ' •!
• ''. ' i'i'*' ' ' i ' \
\ i, '': ' --'I J . *; '
.
o cu s
00
CU 3 i
-a •
cu cu en
&- £•* E
CU T-
> O E
CU 4-> S-
CO 3
4-> ja
cu o
CO rOT3
3 Q. CU
ro EJ3
O -I— -i—
^.
-a o o
r- -I— CO
3 E CU
o o s-
3 E Q-
i
c_> ' .. i
•r-
0
E
3
o
C_J
T3 :
cu
CU :
co •*
E t-H I
O 1
COQ
CU 1 i
O I-H
cu
E
•i—
4->
E
O
O
133
-------
CD
•P
O
ICF
analysis
— ' - rS^
•P
c/) CO
aS'° . CD
CD to CU "DO
0 CO -P 3 •£
•r- CO i — &
3 4-> O O O
-PS U) -r- E E
o-o ••- o
2 ° = .P £ .
P5 •_ 2 _ -H
300
o
•a -P to
E I/) CO S-
ro o S o
•— 0 -P
en to o
E E •!- M-
•r- >•,
estimates
low.
ro
CD O
1^
ra"3
<-, ._
r-
^
CO
•r-
CU
s_
•p
o
s-
5 -^
o o
Q. O
O
•i- -a
-p"3
0 O
i.
cu
S-
to o •
to -I—
CD
r—
r—
•I —
3
CO
XT1
0
CO
CU Q. •
E E S-
•i— -i- O
S- O O
CD T- CO
/It /~\
\/l V-* »»
•1— T—
10 1
2*2
to en 3
E -r- 0
,
CO .Q
ut *->
CUi—
•P CD
to s-
0 CU
0 3:
e
I
to
> E
0
CD
CO
•P
CO
"cLr— E
a. to
3.0.^=
10 3 -P
•
CD
"O i— -
E -a
CO "i—
to
.
•r-
a.
Q.
•r—
to
to
•r—
e/i
IE
•i- CU
CD CD
S- O
0 -P
•P T3
ro CU
jr to
3 3
•r~
o
o
o
cu
E
CD
CO
(O
to
a>
0
o
CD
Q
-a
t/i
?r~
CD
cu
CQ
c*
•p
^
•p
0
o
>,
.
to
3
to i
E CU •
O"O S- t/)
•r- a> o.-a
O -P-E E
.,_ ra cnM- co
. , I
->r '
1
I
• _' '_ ' -- --)
!
'""^ " . """'• t
• . I
i
I
CO
LU
_1
CD
en
E
•r—
tn
to
cu
S
«C
L.
E
CU
1
Q
E
•r—
to
•P
'C
o
E
3
•a
CU E
E CO
CU
-a-a
•a
CD
3
t/»
CD
a.
cu
•r-
«f-
"-P
E
CO
3
&
CD
CD
O
•P
•a
CD
S-
cO
Q.
O
cr o
to
0
Q.
c/1
•P
to
O
O
O
•r—
0
o
o
CD
CD
E
r—
4-
0
-P
trt
•P
to
o
S
Q.
~° "— '
to
E
CD
'•P
O
O
0
•r~
X
CD
CU
o3
S-
'5
E
CO
CU
CJ S- CT>
CU 1
S- -P Q
O CO 1
M- 3 >
i — i
en
•£
•r—
2^.
E t-H
CU rH
^: • 1-1
en Q. i
CD S- Q
r— 0 1
i— O >
eC i — i
CD
N
"P
O
•M— 1
^ Q
CD 1
0 >
S ' — '
O
•P
O
CD
1 1 1
O LO
•r- CM
-P ^H
E 1'
CO Q
i— 1
•P >
B
O
CD
LU
•P
—i
Colorado-l
i
i
i
• LO
O «— 1
O 1
V) Q
to i
-o
CD
O
O
134
-------
to
UJ
o
o
o
C£
r—
»— i re
re
c
CU O
easonabl
ttributi
on re
•p
en E
E CU
CO CU
CO >
CU O
CO S-
co O
^C E
*r~
-P C
Q. O
CU O
E 0
o s-
o o_
• •
s-
CU
4-)
E
CU
pS
O
o
•
O "O CO
•P CO CO CU -I— I
cu •!- -P co cu
CO O CO CU >> S-
cu s- >>•—•-?
o 3i— cu re i— -P
E o re -o E ct. o
cu co E re uj E
s- re cu •
CU CJ JD -P E CO CU
q_ .,_ +j co o re -P
CU M- CO TD O ' 3 tO
S- -i- O r— 0 -O S-
O CJ 3 CU -P 3
i— CU O CU CO S- O
i— n. E .c: -c re o o
•a; co -i— co I— -Q o. re
(O
E S-
CU O 3
E -P S—
"SI 4->*3
•P 0 CO
CU CU
-o re t-1 I-H CM
S- O 1 1
cu re Q -a
a. s- • i i— i
3 C5 "^ ^^ o< ^^
CO I— I UJ t-t
o
3 -a
"O «^ • r*~
CU i-l 1 -P 3
S- -P S- O •
CU 3 O 3 S-
XQ o a. cu
O CU •— -E
•z. -a -P s- o 01
r- re S-'i-
S- 3 J= E -P J=
O O -P -i- E
CO TD O O
•P E CU CU CO
CO O E E CM
O -i— -r- «r- O CU
O -P -P i— CO JD
CJ
•o
E •
re
S- E*
cu re
3 a. >
Q- O
O CD
O «=f
•^ -P CM
lf_ C" |
•r™ O)CI}
O ••- 1
re _i >•
a. i— i
E
O CO
-P
-a T-
0) ci-
co cu
re E
.a cu
di "^
J-t >l
0
•o
i— E
3 O •
O CO CO
g"» ,-jn, J,^
CO S- CO
re o
1— CX O
C£ E
•
z> 1— 1
*
-a
cu
CO N
re >>
•P r— O
to re o
•f- E S-
> re 3
o
p- -P CO
re o
S- E 3
O) CU
CU CU E
•P S-
E CU O
»-H 32=
-
CJ
E
cu
o
•p
cu
Q- CU
•p
C 3 OO
re -P«>I-
O T- CM
•I- -p 1
S- CO Q
CU E 1
E 1-1 >
-
0
i-
Q.
cu
cu
3 •
•o
co cu
•p -p
CO O
o cu
O-I-3
)
: .
!
[i
•
i
i *~^
T3
cu
3
E
•1—
•p
E
o
o
^*-^
135
-------
T3
i— O
O>
CO
UJ
_J
CO
s-
5
O r—
H-l CO
ro
c
0) O
S -p
fO 3
E xi
O T-
W S-
03 4-J
OS rtJ
.
O) C
C 0
•£ E
l/> O)
(/) 5*
C
*•*• »
•P c
CL 0
0) O
C O
o s-
o ex.
* *
i.
cu
c
O)
o
CJ
, ^
O S-
3 O •
-o , >
's'ra i—
O E ra
t/1 CO
•P CU
^ t/) 4^
a. o E
UJ 0 •!-
co
-a i— r—
•i- O ra
•P C E to
S- 0 V->
S- O ra O •--.
O CO 0 E
-r- CO -r- O
E S- LO O to
O O CM CM
tO .E 1 ' — 1
^£ 4J Q r— Q
031 CO 1
rao: >• j=>
•-3.1—1 CO i — i
For Mohave Plant
large discrepancy
between Pullman-
Kellogg Study and
ICF Report.
g
z;
H-
eC CU
CQ r—
S- ra
O E
M— o
to
to cu
0 S-
O E
^^
E to
""
ra
JZ
-P CU
I— >
E i— 0
O T- S-
•r- ^ 0.
ra to T-
S- CO
•P S- >, >,
tO 3 i — -P
O -r- CO 1 —
E "O S- v-
a> E 3 .a
-a cu to «r-
Q- ra to
O X CU T-
Z CO S >
CJ
JJ
o
to PO
to to
eC CM
1— Q
LU >•
3 1-1
3 T-
O E
0 0
E
CO O
ra O
•P CO
to
•r- -P
> to
I— >
ra
S- ra -P
CO O
CO CO ra
-P > Q.
E ra E
1— 1 .E T-
tO O
tt--P E
O-r-
t(- CO •
E CO S- 1—
o E cu a:
to CO 3 CQ
s-
ra O • E
Q.-P CO O
E -0
O to ro "O
0 -P E CO
to to
O O to ra
z: o -r- ja
i— -a
3 E =
O ra •
O i — -P
rO CO CU
= S- O CO
CO CO S- "O
S--O 3 3
O CO O CQ
ra u_ to
CO -P
s_ co o; E
QJ rcr* QJ
Q--P t— E
ra E
to-o s- o
•P CO 3 S-
t/) CO -P "i"
O O (O >
CJ X ^ E
= CO = UJ
o
o
•'si
o o
CO O
UJ S-
co
ra 3 CM
•r- O P~-
C Q. CM
•1— 1
COT3 Q
i- E 1
•r- ro >•
>
ra •
j= -a
CO
to to
ra to
•P CO
to to
•t- tO
> ra
r- E
ra CU
S- CO
CO XI
cu
•P -p
E O
i— i E
Provides no assess-
ment for effective-
ness or benefits
of the regulations
CJ
eC CO
£\a P*»*
U- CM
i — i 1
0- S»
Does not tell what
cost of compliance
will be for
alternate BART.
s-
o
tt-
cu to
> *r~
•i— tO
•P ^>
O r—
CO ra
*• j E
XI ra
o
o -
4— •!—
0 E
0 •
JXi E I—
o o D;
ra O
OQ J=
, — . "1 —
ra -P • ra
O Q.S- CO
o cu cu n:
aco
i — O • LO
ra .CO rax: > CO
E O CM E-P E CM
o o i Oi — uj i
•i— to a ' N ra Q
•P to 1 -r- CO "4- 1
ra «C > s-n: o •=•
-a
CO
3
E
E
o
o
136
-------
O
o
O
on
4J
ai
cu
CO
in
o
o
I
CO
ca
S-
cu
o
10
in
u >.
O r—
t-H fO
03
Reasonable
attribution
4-^
CD E
E CU
•r- E
in d)
to >
cu 0
in S-
10 Q.
U ^
C 0
0 S-
0 Q-
Commenter:
to >>
•r- CU CU^2
^ 2 •
E O 4-> CU tO
(O O CO S- E
fO i— 3-r-
o ca. o+J
•r- S- E •!— in
E cu o 1- cu
0 .E 0 5-
g; +J ' 4-> CU •
O T- S- to "O ^Q
0 CU O O E O
UJ E E C_> 3 CO
0 0
O •
•i— O
ri o
3 O
Q_ to. O
to cu
E
O i—
E 3
O O
O .E
LiJ in
Q. Q-
E
CU
o N
S- T-
O +*
O T-
_£I «=i- CO
o CM "tn
4-> CO i— CO
CO 1 CU 1
r— Q ^. Q
-4-> 1 O I
o > cu >
D_ I-H re 1-1
TD
CO >>
Costs of control
regulation great
exceed benefit.
o
CO
O
-E -r-
3 CO
O O
CO O
« CM
^t J= S~ CO
O O CU CM
0 E 4-> 1
-O CO E Q
td S- CU 1
.E ca o >•
o •-«
cu
J3 O •—
T3 0 CU 0 tO
i— CU 4-> i— O O
3 i — in O i — O
O M- O S=. r—
.E CU 0 S 0
to S- 4-> S-
<+- tO O •
to O O to M- 4->
' E 4J to 4-> E
O to fO to to fO
•i- -a cu o +-> i—
4-> CU v- >> O E Q.
tO -r- 4-> 4-> CU ,
i — M- T- CO "O "O S-
3-1—1 — 'i- CU •»- CU
cn-O to O 4-> to S
CO O CU O •«— CU O
a: E s- to o s- Q.
j.
CU 0
0
E >->
t/> -i— >>
>• E
• to o •
O CU E
• .E O
•ZL o
to cu
o -a
4-> E S-
cu o
4_> p> U—
E CU
co -a E
4-> tO
S- CU -i-
0 4-> 5-
O- to 3
E 4-> 0
1— l OO 4->
^
C_) Q- '
.
i
4-> !
E i
tO !
S- |
-2 = i
>> "5=* & ,
4-> E • N I
§.23- • 5 . i
cS K =;S G S !
•r- 4-> CM ^ CM
- S- 0 0 1 > 1
to o <_> >• cu >•
j CU
8
137
-------
tn
>> in
•P
o
E-P
cu
•E
CU
CO
to
U)
o
o
CO
s_
OJ
.E
-p
o
tn
in
_3 i—
t— 1 03
E
(ti
E
CU O
I™" T—
•° t:
c JE
O T-
tn t-
cu o
in s-
tn Q
^t t
•P E
O. O
cu o
U *•».
c o
0 S-
O Ou
Commenter:
E
O •
•r— in
•p -p
r— *!—
3 CU
O. E
O CU
Q-.Q
Or—
>
•P CD
in cu
-P 3
in -P
0 3
CJ O
o
i.
£
E
CD
o
3 s- co
E CU CM
O-Q 1
O^ E O
CUT- 1
O i— I
' E • -P 3 E
o in tn o o
o cu en o i — T-
4J 4-5 O E CJ> 4-> • CO
COS- CUT- CU E in C3
•r^CU3 WE S-CUCUUJ
<4— O 3CU • O3 E -P Z
co 4— to cu to 03
CUCU OS-CUtOOS-E
_S CD 4-5 O 3 CU 4-5 O
4S££ -o^.?^-o^m
3 -|-> CU ~O C E -r- -r- r- 4->
C O X O3 o3 CU to O3 4-5 CU O3
O03CU U_>4->CUa-3Qi'a
0
T—
o
o
0
*" to
•I— ~~>
tn O
4-5 4-5
CU O3
oi ^:
0
T-
^
O
0
o
cu •
CO
E •
in o
,__
3 E
to s-
CU 03
CJ O «->
4-5
«" °,
03 CU
o --g
. a.
SI E i-
o >-< > r~-
E • CO "CM T- IO
S_ O t— 1 O -OO Qi CM
-p'Si Si -pi
in tn i xi i— i
CL) «cC ;> CU >• o3 -=*
3 H_, j_ i— i CO i— i
4-> 03 1
E -p
CU O S- E
E E O 5-
£ i)- CU
•r- in 4-5
03 cu in cu
a. -a T- -a
"*H ^ i \
O O T—
4-5 a. o cu
T- T- E
i — i — 4-5 CU •
T- O to jQ E
^ i- T- O
to E 03 in -P
•i— O CU O 03
=- 0 S- 0 E
O
Mulloy, Chairman
Western Systems
Coordinating
Council
IV-F-28, IV-F-28a
03
E tn cu
03 E 4->
O 03
4-> T- 3
O 4-5 CT
03 03 CU
Q-r— "O
E 3 03
•r- O1 E
CU T-
O S-
•r- >,
E CUr-
0 SZ i—
E 4-5 03
0 4-5
O 4- O
UJ O 4-5
•
O
s-
cu
§£>
Q_ 03
03 O
4JO
4-*
E C7>i— 1
03 T- I
r-3 1— 1
tn T- j
CU M-
0 CU
"TI3 C
cu
E -Q
O *"^-»
•I- 4-5
4J in
03 O
r— 0 •
3 in
en in T-
cu in tn
S- cu >>
$« i^
CU "O 03
J= T3 E
1— 03 03 -
}
i
•
0
1
1
in
2 i
CQ , '
CU j
4-5 !
CO ,
CD I-*
in ou_
•i— E 1
£~S
i
o
138
-------
n3
OJ •
S- E
00
O
o
-P
o
in
in
>
O i—
i— i
m
o
o
Reasonab
attribut
e
Assessing
me
•P
Q. 0
O)
0
C
O 4-
0 Q.
oi
"Or—
E-MOJOC
«3C rtS
OJ^-t-1
OJ E r— 0 >,
r— 30J(Or-
30-PCLQ-
S- 0 rt E Q.
T33T-3
-OCTtO
o O.-P
8
c
-P JD
ffl
00
OO-r-
4JO "
«*
04- 0)
T- W
-P T3 O •-!
0 T--I-
E ECU
E
oo
OE
o
0
oc
O-r-
oo
(O c/)
•p „
1 — *r~
(8 «4-
O O)
•i- E
•2-0
* £
tn its
•p a-
to E
o o
00
ETD fO 1
uj E > o
E
.°
§
CO
a;
-CO-P
o
-P
> LU -i->
" 0 -U
CDOO
I-I oo I
a I-H
U"?,
ii O)
I
iii
IS
139
-------
CO
1
CO
UJ
in
CO -P
CD •!- •
c™ ^k 4— | ii"
id s- cu o
s_
cu
.E
+J
w)
*'""
u- >,
-< 'ra
E
R>
E
CO O
C .C
0 •!-
>
cu o
to s-
«£ i
•P E
Q. C
U ^>
E 0
O S-
O 0.
* ,
s~
OJ
c
£
c
S- Id E S-
CU -P
S- X> E
CU CO O
•o o cu o
Id CU .E
.n tn cu
s- o to
J- O E -P
Q) -P Id 10
•O Or- O
•i- id id o
to «t- .a
O1*- 0 E
o o "P id
O
•^
E
0
E
O
O
cu
S-
o
II .
«^__ •
,t_\
T3 E
CU CO
CO E
E to
to
CO CU
S- to
O t/1
S id
cu
cu
0
o
o
E
!•• i"
to
o
S-
o
'*
.
C/J
CU T3 (— CU
E CU C£ O
O W (O -r- Id -r- tO
o i— x to id
>,CU 3 CO i— 1— .E P
i— a. CD -i- oc p to
E in CO E id <=£. •!—-•!-
Oldl-OLUCQ3>
-
cu
>
•r-
•p
o
cu
3
t/}
. ^
B
I.
cu
cu
CO
CO •!—
E 10 1
CO-r- -P
.a > 3
o
t/) O tO
CO CO P
tOP •!-
tn o <+-
id S- CO
a. E
o cu •
P >>.O l/l
P E 1- to
i— O -r- O
3 O
O >j
•r- • -P .E
q- tn T- CD
M-P •— -r-
•r- -I- -I- CO
cm- ja 3
S- 1
id cu
O-E
E cu
o -a
o
<""
o-t^ M- :
i- s o
cu to in
OP E •
c to s- -P
id o
-a to s-
cu cn-»-> a.
CU E -t- E
ZT-r- M-T-
•
-o
E
id
CU -P
CD-r-
3 T-
E id
O P
CO CO
•r- CU CM
U U 1
E T- Q
3 S- 1
O Q- >
C_> i— I
o
0 -
in
in
«C
"id
0
c_>
i — CTl
rd en
E CM
0 1
•p 1
id >•
•y t—t
(/>
03
•r-
f—
•r~
^^
oB ^-1
E CM
O 1
P Q
E 1
3 >
-T~ 1 — 1
*
to
id
1*"
r—
•r—
3
o?S C^
o
E 00
01
P Q
E 1
3 >
-1- "^
140
-------
oo
1—
UJ
1=
o
o
i.1
0
^_
a;
^^
2: -
Z3
^— *
OJ
^C
^S
c?;
io
E •
O
O
0)
oo
s-
O)
-o
E
3
0
•r—
fO
O
t^_
•i —
E
O)
T3
i — i
evj
j
i
CO
UJ
CO
1—
OJ
i *
o
E
•r- CD
+-> cn
O E
-— O
03
ec"_a
0»
lOr—
r-li —
to 4->
O) (/)
i— E
Q-rtJ
E 0
i — i
>}
s-
fO
+J E
0) O
O *P
O) O
oo
E
S-i— i
OJ
J3M-
J3 O
3
o;
i ^ f*~
Q. O
0) CJ
O ^
E O
O i-
on.
. .
OJ
i \
E
^
O
0
E
O) •
-t-> E
to O
01 +•>
E 0
O 0
(t3 t/) O , T-
•r- S- O) O O
i — O) S- in E 5-
S-
5
s-
r— CLOtO SCUO^-P
•r- CO U_ =C O Q.M- E C
3 Q- O) CJ rO
•* 4-> ^- ^ Q.
oaco Esro-Pco i —
CO n54-»EOt-^ (OOJ
ECO O-r-O3 -r- -a i o +->
4->Q S-C/>4-»Oa -r-
E 1 OJ E > CD E
C S- CU
1 ^ 1 ^ ^> *^f"
to oo o r^
3 S- 1
-o -a 0.0
E E £ 1
i — i CO i — i >
1 — 1
141
-------
0) O CO
O) O> in T-
•r- E -P
E cu o rcf
ce ja -i- i —
Q. •»-> o
E4-> E -r-
o o a) >
O E -t->
X -P
cn-o O) O
Er— -t-3 <->
CM
o
CO
03 1-
T3 in •
O) E in
c o s-
S- -r- O)
a> in -t-5
01 E
O) in
4-> in
1.1^
CD a) res •
> -0 =
-a re o E
<1) T3 O) fO
in E m •»->
3 0= =S
M- O
E CUTS r-
O in E O
ra
a)
w ~s *™"^
is -J
' Q. 3 in
«-« ta
o s-
O)
.E O
4J .r-
+->
a> a>
> j=
(O •)->
^z in
O)
.TJ
GJ *n™
c: in
o
-o o
m o "-P
in +J ns
O) r—
s- ••-> in
E 01 cn
O S-r
O)
•r- O)
in >
-o 4J
(3 r
OJ E
•»-> O)
r— O1
in s-
4-5
S in •
CD "O
E a> CD
J3 •—
T3 i—
E T3 O
(Ot— S-
3 4->
•O O E
r— .E O
O CO O
O) T-
O r-
X •!-
O) .Q
E in
O E O
E O •!-
S- +J
CO 4- rti
CD O 01
CO -i- O)
•z. -(-> s-
S-TD
ro a>
-
(Oi --
4-> O CO
in c cj
•t-> a) T3
•r- J2 E
i— tO
•r-.-a
J2 i— CO
•r- 3 -
in O O
•i— .E CO
Q. O
O '
E O
O J-
O)
o
a>
O)
O
0)
N
CO CO
S- CM
a> i
E Q
O) >
CO -E
O
CM
OJ
N
CO
t—1
CM
O.Q
to >
O)
a; CM
CO
E I
«=C I-H
CO
o
142
-------
to
h-
•z.
UJ
s:
o
O
O!
C
ra
O r-
OJ
>- U
CO
1
I
i
I
1" "Tmpaction
ij
i
n
;|
]
j
i
•j
ii
!
!
1
11
S-
o
u>
03
CU
S-
O) ro
5-
3 l — l
4J
3 to
f- in
ro
O
•P
x» i
tU
M— E
0 i-
>> ro
4T-> f*;
I— •!-
•r—
•r- -u>
tO •!—
J- i —
CU •!-
> ft
CU T-
Q£ to
•r-
>
-O 4-5
E -r-
ro i —
•r~
to JD
— "I—
o to
OO •!-
2: >
•p c
Q. 0
CU O
U \
E O
0 S-
cj o-
il
S
o
CJ
i- 1 1 CU
to o ••• cu -r- > -P
2 et— -P i- <4— CU rcSCUE
tD o-p-'r-j3 j^tncuE
•r-TDr03-M OS-Oi-i
>CUQ.crE-O T3Q-CU
cu tn E cu cu i — " i — El- tn tn
S_3-r-S-T33 3-i-M--l->tn
•i— O O T- E ro
C CD H- '• JE -CQ-OCUi —
rojD os-s-tn- tn-P Eo
i— >, O T3 S- CU
O.-O S M-ECU cnEOS-CU'-
i— CUt-i OQ- CUO -r-S-tn
-O3-r- 4->-r-O- 4->-r-CU33fO
CO>CUE-PO 03-PE CT+J CU
(O^CUJCCOrOS- -PQ-rOCU3S-
itnS-l — EO"O cootnS-M-ro
.
CU
i — ro .E
J3 -P
tn (O ro
S- <~ CU
CU -P -E
CU S- O
s- -t eC -P
•o
CU
-a
tn -a i —
s- cu o
CU i- E
•P CU -r-
CU -P CU
E rOJ3
-a -a
S- Er—
CU rO 3
-a s- o
r— CD .E
o — tn
1
1
1
i
tn no 1 E- CU
rO T3 CU O rO O S-
i— r— -O S- S- O •
O3S-Q.E3-OE
O O O O >s- tnE-r-
E tn M- 4-» 4- -P
CU rO -i— Dl ro rO
3 tn i— E E 0
CJ" ra CU T- O •!— tn T-
CU CU-QJDT--P tnM-
tn s- •!- -P in cu -r-
o rO-P tn O-r-i — t3
3 O -i- CU X E O
00 «— i E > -P CU 3 E
Q. Q- ° °
Q.
o
jc en
to ' E
if 'i
0 0
•§ ja
tn rO
tn i- *
cu o r>. s- co
Ei— CO O UD
S_ 0 «-i E r-1
cucj i s- i
"O * — ^ CU Q
r— <4- 1 > 1
•i— O >• O >
31—1 CD 1—1
cu
M o3
•r~ >>
•t^ CU r3
<_> 3 Q-
« a. o
S_ 00 0 LO
cu to ro tn
.c r-t -a -P CM
O 1 -t- -E 1
4-> Q S- CDQ
CU 1 O-i-l
U_ i— < U_ i— i
O
S-
o
CU
UJ
T-H
i— VO
rO CM
CU C3
E 1
CU >
CD i— i
CU
3
E
'-P
E
O
O
143
-------
-J J-
S. 3 01
i— co
03 r—
•»-> E
S- co
O S-
§-2
CO Q.
3 O
cn E O
cu -tJ
5- S-
O CU 01
01 O CU
CU CU E S-
01 r- CU 3
O 4^ "O CO
Q_4-> •!— CO
O.T- > CU
O —1 CU E
Ol >>
CO S-
cO
CU E
r— O
CU 01 01
-a co cu
•i- O
01 i— S-
Ei— 3
O CU O
O "5. 01
01 CD
E 4->
O E
CO "O CU
r- E S-
3 O cn
cn >, E
cu cu o
QL J3 CJ
(O t/>
i— ra
c o
(O 4->
r— E
13 CU
OVr-
OJ O
o o
t/> to
•)-> O
CT) O
CD CU
Di 4J
01 E E
cu T— cu
E E CU
OS- 4J CU 01
E E 3
CU O CO
E O. O
_ s--*-*
,— -r-j -r- 01 i—
CO O r—
O.Q-T-
a
0 -
S- I—
CO T-
c; w
>,CU E
+?•— O
•r- xi T-
, — .r- 4->
•i- t/1 (O
ja s-i— •
•i— CU 3 E
W) > CT> i-
•i— cu cu S- S- J=
10 CL)
•*-> to
E CU
CU 03
Q-"O
E E
-r- (O
>> CU
JD s- cu
•!— CU 3
tO > r—
T- cu ro
E T-
tO JD
— -r—
O tO
OO -r-
•z: >
CL O
a>
O
e o
o '~
O Q
o
-»§•
o
COO
ta
C3 O
•r- CM
O S- t-H
•r-4-> CO
M- O I
•i- cu a
Or— I
(OLU >•
• CO
LO
o i
•r-Q
S- I
CD
n.
CO
cu
4->
co r-~
+-> CD
01 OJ
S- I
cu a
E O
CO CO
cu a
ro
co
•r—
O
CO CDLO
E M- CM
o s: i
•r- a
4-> M- I
CO O >
>> O •(->
t— =H= O
ZD o to r^
•r" CO "^t"
O S- r— CM
•r- 4-> 01 I
i— 01 3 O
J3 -r- O I
3 a a :=>
cu
o
144
-------
UJ
o
o
in
3
O
CU
E
rc
o •—
O)
>- u
oc. in
, CD O IO
CO E -P -P
m ~n •_ r~
S-
cu
J=
•p
o
in
fd
O)
s-
co to
i-
3 KH
4^
3 10
t- in
to
o
-P
E
CO
<*- E
O 5-
>> fO
•P Q.
•r- E
IS >,
in T-
£_ i—
O) •!-
O) •!-
rv* if
"T3 4™
E T-
CO i—
•r—
•P E
Q. 0
CO O
U "^
C O
0 S-
0 Q.
^
a
•p
E
CU
o
o
S- I S- CU CU
•r- O CO E E
•P vo cu •!— E
E .E -P O
CU CO O
4- S
10 E ' -P o o cu
CU CO to i — i-
to S- CU >>r— CO
O CT5 3 CO CO Q-
Q.O CTr- CU
Q.S- CU CU O S-
o a. oi -a -p Q.
to to o i
•P a> T- c ~o
CU O -P O CU
to s- c: cj a> -P
H- 3 CU -O CO
<4- O -P CU 3 i—
O 10 X r— r— CU
cu .a o s-
•P O- E 3 -r- >!
•i- E CO CQ -P
i — CU = O •>—
•r~ >< | ^ ] ^ |__
J3 CU 10 CU T-
1/1 E C7) -P 4-> -r-
•i— O CD D. 10
> S- 34- CU -P-
= 4- CO O O >
to
E
o
to
to
•r-
cu
.
i— -p i—
r- ••- CO
•r— ^S E •! — O
i— E -Q 'i"
^1 1 _O -r- " O) '
3 O to CU CU
D- to • M- o a:
cu «> >» s-
q- -r- -0 0 E •— I~~
O-PS~I^- "Li_S-T—CM
•r- o r>» i- cu o co
• r— H- 1 CU ^: -P E 1
•P-r-CDQ -atOtO3Q
Q.-P El >-, CO OJ O 1
CUrD-r-> C 1— 3 O >
Q 1— I CO 1— 1
CO
1 C
s- .a o
•P CU 3 T- •
o o. 10 -P to
E 0. -r- -P
O CU "O -r-
-0 0 JD T3 E
•I- CO •!-
-a s- o •—
0 -P 0
tot- -P c:
to >- o
CU "O CU "O T—
S- E -P CU to
CD cu i — -P in
E -P CU O T—
O E E CU E
O •!- to -I-) CU
0
,
cu
E
cu
^
•> Q.
E S-
0 0
•POO
cu co
I— -p 1
0--P U_
E 0 i
cu o >
1— >— 1
a_
tl
E
o
cu
-E
o
S- CM
CU 1
-P
Ll_ HH
145
-------
SECTION 4
RESPONSE TO MAJOR COMMENTS
The following represents the responses to- the major com-
ments and issues identified in Section 2 and summarized in
Section 3. A summary of each individual comment by commenter is
in Appendix A.
4.1 DEFINITION OF VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT
There were many commenters which had some reservations
about the definition of "visibility impairment." Although most
commenters agreed that "human perceptibility" was the proper
criterion for defining "visibility impairment," many objected
that without further quantification, the term was vague or too
subj ective.
EPA intends that "humanly perceptible" impairment have a
common sense meaning, i.e., it is impairment that generally can
be perceived by people (such as park visitors). While it is
true that human perception of a change in visibility may be
subjective, it is this very perception by visitors to the manda-
tory Class I Federal areas that Congress sought to protect from
impairment by manmade air pollution. There has been and still
is ongoing documentation to relate instrument measurements to
the human perceptibility factors. Perceptibility is based upon
many different factors, such as the background and natural
conditions and probably cannot be defined as a single value
under all circumstances. Visibility in terms of reductions in
visual range and contrast change have been demonstrated to be
perceptible. For instance, documentation of human observations
of reductions in visual range as small as 5 percent and a con-
trast change in the range of 0.01 to 0.04 have been reported.
146
-------
Current efforts to describe visibility impairment in terms of
coloration are promising, but are incomplete. Although several
alternate definitions were offered, the Agency feels that at
this time the definition which was proposed on May 22, 1980,
represents the most reasonable and workable of all the defini-
tions considered by the Agency. Those definitions proposed by
commenters did not truely address the issue at hand, the defini-
tion of visibility impairment, but dealt more with methodolo-
gies, such as human observer panels, for determining whether or
not visibility impairment existed. The use of human observer
panels as a monitoring device is discussed below in Section 4.
A number of commenters suggested that the definition of
visibility impairment should be the same as the definition of
significant impairment. There are a number of reasons why the
Agency has rejected this suggestion. First, the national goal
calls for the remedying and prevention of any impairment, where-
as sources may obtain an exemption from BART if they do not
cause or contribute to significant impairment. Obviously, by
the use of two different modifiers for impairment, Congress
intended two different meanings. Congress chose to separate
"significant" from "any" in Section 169A of the Act and it is
appropriate that a distinction is made in the regulations. Even
the dissenters to § 169A in Congress recognized this distinc-
tion. See H. Rep. No. 95-294, supra, at 528. Secondly, any
impairment (perceptible to humans) relates to any change in
visibility that might interfere with the public's enjoyment,
while significant impairment relates to how much it interferes
with the public's enjoyment. Thus, the definition of signifi-
cant impairment includes considerations of such factors as when
the impairment occurs, where it occurs, and how the visitors'
use might be affected by the impairment. Lastly, while Congress
was clearly concerned about substantial impairment and the
visitors' visual experience of the mandatory Class I areas, it
did not state that it was only concerned with substantial im-
pairment. Congress did, however, recognize that achievement of
147
-------
the national visibility goal could take a long time and that
other considerations may affect the ability to achieve the
national visibility goal in the near future. It therefore
required the development of a long-term strategy which includes
cost, remaining useful life of the affected source and other
relevant factors.
Several commenters noted the fact that the definition for
"significant impairment" and "adverse impact" are very similar.
The two terms have two different applications in the regula-
tions. "Significant impairment," for the purposes of Section
51.303, applies to mandatory Class I Federal areas and existing
sources. "Adverse impact" applies to any Federal Class I area
and new sources subject to the PSD requirements of Section
51.24. Additionally, "adverse impact" refers to a single major
stationary source's effect on visibility, while "significant
impairment" refers to existing conditions most likely resulting
from several sources. The definitions are essentially the same
because the same factors are to be considered in the determina-
tions of whether a potential effect is an "adverse impact" or
whether an existing impairment is considered "significant."
Several commenters argued that the inability to determine
natural conditions rendered the definition of visibility impair-
ment unworkable. While the Agency recognizes that the determi-
nation of natural conditions, as defined in this final rule, may
be extremely difficult until the current monitoring research is
complete, it is important to remember that (1) some knowledge
has been gained through current research which can be used and
must be considered in developing a monitoring strategy, and (2)
these rules address only impairment which is reasonably attrib-
utable. The combination of knowledge gained and the restriction
to reasonably attribute will enable the State to implement a
visibility protection program even if it is admittedly somewhat
limited. Phase II of the visibility program will necessarily
require a much more precise determination of what is visibility
impairment and what are natural conditions.
148
-------
As explained in the Supplemental Statement to the proposal,
EPA is including "contrast" in the definition of visibility
impairment. Contrast is a directly measurable parameter and is
mathematically interrelated to visual range. Therefore, EPA
believes as a legal matter it can and as a policy matter it
should include contrast in this definition.
4.2 EXISTING STATIONARY FACILITY
When EPA proposed visibility regulations on May 22, 1980,
EPA had not yet finalized its PSD rulemaking in response to
Alabama Power Co. v. Costle,,13 ERC 1993 (B.C. Cir. 1979). This
latter rulemaking included, among other things, a definition of
the term "major stationary source" under Section 169(1) of the
Act for purposes of PSD review.
In the statement accompanying its definition of "existing
major stationary source" in the May 1980, visibility proposal,
EPA said that
[a]ny change in EPA's proposed interpretation of
section 169(1) for purposes of PSD may affect the
definition proposed today for visibility [under
section 169A(g)(7)] unless legal authority and dif-
fering program objectives would support different
definitions for each program. 45 FR 34771
EPA noted that since Congress took the definition in Section
169A(g)(7) to a significant degree from that in Section 169(1),
it was "appropriate" to examine what Congress intended under
Section 169(1). EPA noted also that in Alabama Power the Court
of Appeals had carefully examined Section 169(1) and concluded
that Congress gave EPA latitude to define "source" to reflect,
to a certain degree, the purpose and structure of the program
for which the definition is intended. 13 ERC 2040.
EPA finalized its PSD regulations, including its proposed
definition of "major stationary source" under Section 169(1), on
August 7, 1980 (45 FR 52676). These PSD regulations changed
somewhat -the definitions proposed under Section 169(1). EPA's
149
-------
definition of "existing stationary facility" for purposes of
this visibility rulemaking reflects most, but not all, of those
changes in EPA's PSD regulations. EPA incorporates here by
reference its response to comments on the PSD proposal under
Section 169 (I)1 to the extent that response is relevant to
comments EPA received on its proposed visibility definition of
"existing major stationary source." EPA discusses the changes
from its visibility proposal and responds to additional comments
below.
Under Section 169A(b) (2) (A), EPA's visibility regulations
must require certain "major stationary sources" to install BART
if they were "in existence" on the Act's date of enactment
(August 7, 1977) but had not been "in operation" for more than
15 years as of that date. Although the Act does not define "in
existence," it does, in Section 169A(g)(7), define "major
stationary source." EPA's proposal labeled this term "existing
major stationary source" in order to avoid confusion with the
definition of major stationary source in its PSD regulations.
For this same purpose the final regulations label "existing
stationary," facility for a source listed in Section 169A(g)
(7).2 No change has been proposed or promulgated in this rule-
making for the definition of major stationary source as defined
in the PSD regulations.
The proposal followed the language of Section 169A(g)(7),
which defines "major stationary source" as any one of a list of
enumerated sources "with the potential to emit 250 tons or more
S FR 52676 et seq. , especially 52688-52698, 52703 (August 7,
1980).
EPA is free to label these terms as it pleases "so long as the
regulatory term is defined in a manner consistent with statu-
tory requirements." See Alabama Power supra, 13 ERG at 200,
n. 28.
150
-------
of any pollutant."3 EPA's interpretation of this language ad-
dresses both the term "potential to emit" and "stationary
source."
In response to the Alabama Power court's decision, and
consistent with EPA's September 5, 1979, proposed PSD regula-
tions (44 FR 51924), EPA's proposed visibility regulations would
have taken into account the application of control equipment in
computing potential emissions. The proposal noted that EPA
would assume that a facility's air pollution control equipment
would function in the manner reasonably anticipated.
EPA is today promulgating this general approach, which was
supported by public comments. Today's rule requires that opera-
tion of control equipment be a federally enforceable require-
ment. Thus, a company may receive credit for the application of
control equipment only to the extent that the resulting reduc-
tion in emissions is federally enforceable. In summary, today's
rule defines "potential to emit" as the ability at maximum
design capacity to emit air pollution, taking into account any
in-place control equipment. Design capacity, and thus potential
to emit, may be further limited if control equipment better than
that normally required by the applicable SIP is installed and a
correspondingly more stringent level of emissions control be-
comes federally enforceable.
The preamble to the PSD regulations (45 FR 52688-9) discus-
ses in detail the reasons why today's regulations recognize the
ability of all federally enforceable limitations to constrain
o
One commenter complained that EPA's proposal impermissibly re-
stricted the pollutants which could satisfy the 250 ton thres-
hold to those "regulated under the Act." The Act, the com-
menter noted, speaks of any pollutant, not any regulated pol-
lutant. Although EPA would expect little, if any, difference
in the "real world" effect under the commenter's preferred de-
finition and the one EPA proposed, EPA has accepted the corn-
mentor's point. An otherwise qualifying source would thus be
an "existing major stationary source" under today's promulga-
tion if, as Section 169A(g)(7) provides, it has "the potential
to emit 250 tons or more of any pollutant."
151
-------
the potential to emit of a stationary source. That preamble
also states the reasons why today's regulations, like the
May 22, 1980, proposal and the PSD regulations, count fugitive
emissions in determining the annual potential to emit. See 45
FR 52690-52693. The final definition of "potential to emit"
announced today is similar to that promulgated in the August 7,
1980, PSD and nonattainment plan revisions.
EPA's proposed definition of "stationary source" in the
rulemaking was "any building, structure, facility, or installa-
tion which emits or may emit any pollutant regulated under the
Clean Air Act." EPA gave reasons for the definition in the
statement accompanying the proposal.4 There were no significant
objections to this definition and EPA is today finalizing it.5
In May 1980, EPA proposed to define "building, structure,
facility, and installation" as
any grouping of pollutant emitting activities which
is located on one or more contiguous or adjacent
properties and which is owned or operated by the same
person (or persons under common control).
EPA also proposed that a source would be treated as a new source
if it was "reconstructed," which was presumed where the fixed
capital cost of the new component exceeds 50 percent of the
fixed captial cost of a comparable entirely new source. As the
statement accompanying the May proposal explained in detail, EPA
concluded that the proposed definition of "building, structure,
facility, or installation" would serve Congressional intent and
the purposes of Section 169A adequately by subjecting to BART
those activities that were reconstructed between August 7, 1962,
and August 7, 1977, provided they had the potential to emit 250
tons a year or more of any pollutant and fell within one of the
listed 28 source categories. This followed from the proposed
1See, also, the preamble to the proposed and final PSD regula-
tions .
5For the reasons set out in footnote 3, EPA has deleted the re-
guirement that the pollutant emitted must be regulated under
the Act.
152
-------
definition, EPA explained, "since 'source1 would, in effect,
mean any grouping of pollutant-emitting activities at one site
and under common control." (original emphasis) 45 Federal
Register 34771.6
In August 1980, EPA promulgated identical definitions of
"building, structure, and facility" for PSD and nonattainment
areas. These terms mean "all of the pollutant-emitting activi-
ties which belong to the same industrial grouping, are located
on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under
the control of the same person (or persons under common con-
trol)." (emphasis added). By "pollutant-emitting activities
which belong to the same industrial grouping," EPA meant those
activities that "belong to the same 'Major group' (i.e., which
have the same two-digit code) as described in the Standard In-
dustrial Classification Manual, . . . ."
EPA added this requirement of "belonging to the same indus-
trial grouping" basically in response to comments that the
proposed definitions would be too inclusive because they would
group sets of activities at one site and under common control
.that are functionally or operationally distinct. Typical of the
examples cited were: 1) a surface coal mine and coal-burning
electrical generators that the mine supplies with coal, and 2) a
primary aluminum ore reduction plant, an aluminum fabrication
plant, and an aluminum reclamation plant. Under the final
definition, however, these nominally different sets of activi-
ties would fall into a different two-digit category.
EPA has today adopted the PSD and nonattainment area defi-
nition of "building, structure, and facility" for the visibility
DBy contrast, EPA intended its proposed PSD definition of source
to apply only to all the activities at a plant, and not to ap-
ply, in addition, to any subgroup of those activities. 45 FR
52696 (August 7, 1980).
153
-------
program. The reasons .are those given in the preamble to the PSD
and nonattainment area promulgation.7 EPA intends that its
interpretation of "building, structure, and facility" be identi-
cal to that for "building, structure, facility, or installation"
used for PSD purposes. See 45 FR 52693-52696 (August 7, 1980).8
In the _August 7, 1980, promulgation, EPA defined for PSD
the term "installation" the same as it had "building, structure,
and facility." For nonattainment areas, however, EPA defined
"installation" to mean "an identifiable piece of process equip-
ment. " Thus nonattainment requirements would apply to a new
piece of equipment that would emit "major" amounts of a pollu-
tant for which the area had been designated nonattainment,
regardless of any accompanying emissions offsets at the plant.
Referring to Alabama Power, EPA stated that the fundamental
difference between the nonattainment provisions (which are
designed to reduce emissions) and the PSD provisions (which are
designed to maintain air quality within the applicable incre-
ments) required this different approach to defining the sources
subject to the nonattainment provisions. 45 FR 52693-52698.
45 FR 52693-52698. Obviously, some of the reasons advanced in
support of the definition are peculiar to the PSD or nonattain-
ment programs. Alternatively, some of the reasons discussed
that arguably do not favor this definition are also peculiar to
the PSD or nonattainment programs. EPA has considered those
differences and concluded that a similar definition is never-
theless warranted for this rulemaking. EPA also believes re-
gulatory uniformity, where possible, is a virtue. As discussed
below, however, EPA concluded that a difference in legislative
mandate required a different definition of "installation" for
the visibility program and the PSD program.
Thus, for example, today's definition of "secondary emissions"
is similar to the PSD definition of that term. See 45 FR
52695-52696. The only change from the PSD definition reflects
the fact that under the visibility regulations only existing,
as opposed to new, sources are affected by the definition of
"secondary emissions."
8
154
-------
For similar reasons, as explained below, EPA has promul-
gated a definition of "installation" in this rulemaking identi-
cal to the one promulgated for nonattainment areas.9 The pri-
mary effect of this nonattainment ("dual") definition of instal-
lation, will be to subject to BART review those major additions
that occurred between August 7, 1962, and August 7, 1977, at a
plant, even if that plant was otherwise "grandfathered" from
BART review (i.e., was "in operation" before August 7, 1962), if
the addition had the potential to emit 250 tons a year of any
pollutant and if the addition itself fell into one of the 28
source categories. Thus, the addition in 1965 to a powerplant
of a fossil-fuel boiler of more than 250 million Btu per hour
heat input would be subject to BART review if it had the .poten-
tial to emit greater than 250 tons a year of any pollutant. On
the other hand, the addition in 1965 of a reverberatory furnace
would not be subject to BART review, even if it had the poten-
tial to emit more than 250 tons a year of a pollutant, unless
the addition of the fixed capital cost of the. reverberatory
furnace exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of an
entirely new primary copper smelter, as provided in the defini-
tion of "reconstruction." The difference, noted by commenters
representing industry, arises because utility boilers are one of
the 28 source categories listed in Section 169A(g)(7), but
reverberatory furnaces are not. Thus, a reverberatory furnace
added in 1965 could not be "major," unless its addition or
modification amounted to a "reconstruction" of the primary
copper smelter of which it is a part.
Since this definition of "installation" would subject to
BART review more projects than would the plant-wide definition
used for PSD purposes (including replacement facilities that
would not be subject to BART review under a plant-wide defini-
tion), use of the definition is more consistent with Congres-
sional intent regarding the visibility program. As explained in
EPA has also today promulgated a definition of "reconstruction"
that is similar to the one promulgated for nonattainment areas.
See 45 FR 52703.
155
-------
the visibility proposal, Congress structured the program so that
the BART requirements would be an important mechanism for re-
medying existing visibility impairment.
The dual definition is consistent with Alabama Power and
ASARCO Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319 (B.C. Cir. 1978). Alabama
Power held that EPA had broad discretion to define the consti-
tuent terms of "source" so as best to effectuate the purposes of
the statute. Different definitions of "source" can, therefore,
be used for different sections of the statute. See 13 ERG at
2039. As EPA discussed in its proposal, a central, statutorily-
stated purpose of the visibility program is to remedy any exist-
ing impairment of visibility, not merely to maintain existing
levels of impairment. See Section 169A(a)(l). In fact, a re-
trofit requirement can logically be thought of only as a device
to enhance, rather than maintain, an existing condition. The
legislative history expresses an unmistakeable intent to
"remedy" and "cure" existing levels of visibility impairment.10
The 15 year grandfather provision was to avoid undue burden and
cost. As EPA said in its proposal:
Although the BART analysis itself considers the re-
maining useful life of the source, cost, and other
factors, Congress decided that EPA should not be
required by statute to require BART for all sources
regardless of age as a minimum condition for SIP
approval.
Where a source has had an addition or reconstruction
with the potential to emit 250 tons a year of a pol-
lutant between August 7, 1962, and August 7, 1977,
EPA believes that the implicit concern of Congress
regarding remaining useful life does not apply to the
new components at the site and that, therefore, Con-
gress did not intend to "grandfather" such additions
or reconstructions. Such a "grandfathering" approach
would be without reason and could seriously under-
mine progress toward remedying existing visibility
impairment. 45 FR 34771-34772.
10
See, e.g., House Report at 205-206; Conference Report at 155.
156
-------
The dual definition, therefore, comports with the purposes of
Section 169A of the Act.11
Moreover, Alabama Power and ASARCO taken together indicate
that there is a distinction between Clean Air Act programs
designed to enhance air quality and those designed only to
maintain air quality. In ASARCO, the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit struck down the definition of
"source" for new source performance standards (NSPS), which had
employed a "bubble" concept. An important element in the
court's decision was its belief that the "bubble," by allowing
emission units to escape NSPS, was inconsistent with the purpose
of NSPS, which was to improve air quality. See 578 F.2d at
327-28. But in Alabama Power, the same court held that for PSD
purposes, EPA may use a "bubble" approach, precisely because PSD
is designed to maintain air quality and, therefore, deals with
"a significantly different regulation and statutory purpose."
12 ERG at 2044.
Under this analysis, use of a plant-wide definition to
escape BART review is inappropriate since a central purpose of
the visibility program is to remedy existing visibility impair-
ment. Congress itself pointed to this stark distinction between
the PSD and visibility programs. It found that the PSD program
would be inadequate to protect visibility because PSD requires
no reduction in the emissions of, and thus no improvement from,
existing sources currently contributing to unacceptable levels
of visibility impairment. In addition, Congress believed that
maintaining air quality within the Class I increments could in
some cases still result in unacceptable visibility impairment.
Thus, Congress had to and did authorize a separate and distinct
approach to protect visibility.12
1:LAs the League of Women Voters said in agreeing with EPA's pro-
posal regarding reconstructed sources: "A plant which was con-
structed in the 1950's that subsequently has been enlarged, is
no longer the same facility that Congress intended to exempt
from retrofit requirements."
12House Report at 205. As explained elsewhere in this notice
and in the visibility proposal, Congress intended that the
visibility and PSD programs work together to the degree pos-
sible.
157
-------
Finally, promulgation of the dual definition follows the
mandate of Alabama Power which held that, although EPA could not
define "source" as a combination of sources, EPA had broad
discretion to define "building," "structure," "facility," and
"installation" to best accomplish the purposes of the Act. 13
ERC at 2039. This holding contemplates that one term (such as,,
"building") may be more inclusive than another term (such as
"installation"), and so a "building" may include many "installa-
tions." In this way, a "source" can, under Alabama Power, be
composed of smaller "sources," yet not be a combination of
sources. The dual definition fits into Alabama Power, since
under EPA's definitional scheme, a "source" is either an indi-
vidual piece of process equipment or the entire plant; it is not
a combination of sources. That is, when deciding whether a
source is subject to BART review, the reviewing authority must
determine whether an individual piece of equipment, or the plant
as a whole, was "in operation" after August 7, 1962, and "in
existence" on August 7, 1977, and had the "potential to emit"
250 tons a year of any pollutant. A plant or individual piece
of equipment meeting these criteria is a "source" subject to
BART review. Thus, the plant itself is a source, not a combina-
tion of sources, although it may contain smaller sources.
4.3 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER (FLM)
EPA's proposed regulations required a State to consult in
many instances with the "affected" FLM (i.e., the FLM having
authority over Federal land to which the State plan applies)
before making a decision regarding its visibility protection
program. EPA explained in the statement accompanying its pro-
posal that although the State would retain final authority for
development and implementation of the visibility protection
program, the State's decisionmaking should be informed by the
affected FLM's opinion since those FLMs would be familiar with
the unique conditions and the importance of visibility values to
a visitor's experience in the areas they manage.
158
-------
EPA received a good deal of public comment on the proper
role of the FLM. Industry and State commenters complained that
the proposal created responsibilities for the FLMs that went
beyond those detailed in the Act, and that in many cases would
intrude on the Act's clear committment of a decision to the
State. On the other hand, environmental commenters and members
of the public urged an expanded role for the FLMs.
EPA continues to believe that although the State has pri-
mary responsibility for developing and implementing the visi-
bility protection program, Congress intended that the State's
decisions be informed by the FLM's recommendation. This is
apparent from § 169A(a)(2), which requires the Secretary of the
Interior to identify in the first instance the manadatory Class
I Federal areas in which visibility is an important value, from
§ 169A(c)(3) which makes an exemption from the BART requirement
effective only upon the affected FLM's concurrence, and most
manifestly from § 169A(d) which requires the State to consult
"in person" with the affected FLM before the public hearing on
its SIP revision under § 169A, and to include a summary of the
FLM's conclusions and recommendations in the notice to the
public of the public hearing. Congress clearly felt that the
FLM's had a special expertise to contribute, and wanted that
expertise to be considered in the development and implementation
of the visibility protection program. This makes sense. As EPA
observed in the statement accompanying its proposal, in order
for the program to work well, the FLM and the State must work
together.
Congress recognized that FLM/State cooperation was neces-
sary not only as noted above in connection with the visibility
program in particular, but also in connection with the Act in
general. Section 121 of the Act requires the State, in carrying
out major SIP-related requirements of the Act (including protec-
tion of visibility), to "provide a satisfactory process of
consultation with . . . any Federal Land Manager having author-
ity over Federal land to which the State plan applies . . . ."
The conference committee noted that it had specifically required
159
-------
the Senate to "include the Federal Land Manager in the consulta-
tion process with respect to Federal lands."
In response to comments from industry and States, but in
keeping with Congress1 desire that the affected FLMs be heard on
State decisions regarding the lands they manage, the final
visibility regulations delete a number of the repeated refer-
ences to FLM consultation.13 However, many of the consultation
requirements that have been deleted are subsumed under the
general provisions, explicitly required by the Act, that the
State consult the affected FLMs on its plan revision before the
public hearing and notify the public of the affected FLM's
recommendations. EPA believes that none of the deleted provi-
sions for consultation are required as a minimum condition of
plan approval. Also, their deletion may help avoid cumbersome
or unnecessary FLM consultation requirements and the appearance
that States are not to be trusted—none of which EPA intended in
its proposal.
Several private citizens expressed a concern that the
thirty day period for review of a new source permit application
by the Federal Land Manager was not adequate. These commenters
recommended up to one year for the Federal Land Manager to
review the new source permit. However, since the State must
perform an analysis of the anticipated visibility impacts on the
Federal Class I areas at the same time as it is reviewing the
13
In particular, EPA has deleted the proposed requirement that
the State document why it did not accept the FLM's recommenda-
tion that visibility impairment is reasonably attributable to
a source. This provision received the most objection from
State and industry commenters. The other role the proposal
gave the FLMs that received great objection from industry
and -State commenters was to identify existing visibility
impairment in the areas they manage. EPA has retained this
provision, however, since under Subpart C of the Act Congress
gave the FLMs the role for characterizing the impairment in
the areas they manage. It is the State, however, that de-
cides whether that impairment is attributable, and weighs the
various cost and benefit factors in determining the appropri-
ate remedies under § 169A. The State, of course, may also
identify impairment.
160
-------
permit application, the entire process may easily take up to
ninety days based oil the proposed regulations. Although the
Federal Land Managers could possibly prepare a better analysis
if they had one year to review a new source application, in many
cases this would conflict with existing State laws for the pro-
cessing of permits which require that the State approve or deny
the permit within 90 days of its receipt. In addition, extend-
ing the time period to one year would put a large burden in
terms of delay and construction costs on any company planning to
construct.
It is anticipated, however, that prior consultation between
the State, source, and the Federal Land Manager will take place
before the complete New Source Review permit application is
filed. In many cases preapplication meetings are held which
would allow some additional time for consultation even prior to
submitting any formal information regarding the new source. The
prior consultation would be beneficial in resolving any poten-
tial problems which might arise concerning visibility in the
permitting process. This would also alleviate what appears to
be a rather tight time constraint for all parties concerned.
There were comments about a possible veto power by the
Federal Land Manager over new source permits for sources which
might impact on visibility in the Federal Class I areas or on
the integral vistas. This is mistaken. The State must consider
any analysis performed by the Federal Land Manager. There must
be consultation between the Federal Land Manager and the State
during the permitting process. The language in the regulations
has been changed from the proposal in order to clarify the
respective roles of the Federal Land Manager and the State. In
no sense, however, does the Federal Land Manager have veto power
over the new source permit. Section 165(d) of the Act gives
final authority to the State in a case where the Class I incre-
ment is not violated. However, the State may choose to deny the
application, condition the permit, or require visibility moni-
toring based on the comments of the Federal Land Manager.
161
-------
Furthermore, if the State is not satisfied with the Federal Land
Manager's demonstration of adverse impact, then the State must
give its reasons why the State did not deny the new source
permit application. Section 165(d), however, does not cover
integral vistas. The protection required by Section 307 of
these regulations regarding integral vistas allows the State to
consider cost, energy, and other relevant factors.
Several commenters stated the Federal Land Managers should
have no part in the new source review process at all. These
comments came from both industry and States. As earlier stated,
Section 165(d) of the Clean Air Act clearly gives the Federal
Land Manager an affirmative responsibility to protect Federal
Class I areas from visibility impairment. Congress placed
responsibility with the Federal Land Managers since they are the
most familiar with the characteristics of the Class I area and
are charged by law with managing the areas.
There were also commenters which stated that the Federal
Land Managers did not have the technical expertise to make
recommendations or evaluations relating to air quality values.
As noted, the Federal Land Managers are the appropriate persons
to make • certain recommendations since they are responsible for
the Federal Class I areas. The Federal Land Managers also have
experienced staff or access to expertise to aid them in making
the technical recommendations and evaluations which need to be
made in relation to visibility protection. To the extent af-
fected Federal Land Managers cannot document their conclusion
that a new source would cause an adverse impact on visibility,
the State is of course less apt to be satisfied with the Federal
Land Managers' demonstrations.
One commenter was concerned that the Federal Land Manager
could stop new projects by identifying a new integral vista.
The identification of a new integral vista by the Federal Land
Manager does not affect the new source unless the integral vista
was identified more than six months prior to submission of a
complete permit application. Therefore, the submission of a
162
-------
complete new source permit would not be affected by the Federal
Land Manager's identification of a new integral vista. Close
coordination between the State and the source making the appli-
cation will preclude any unforeseen situations which might cause
an application to be considered incomplete or unsatisfactory.
One commenter stated that the Federal Land Manager would
have control over future energy development around Federal Class
I areas. The Federal Land Manager will be responsible for
characterizing visibility in these areas and identifing integral
vistas, but it will be the State that makes the final decision
to approve or disapprove a permit application where the source
may impact on an integral vista associated with a mandatory
Class I Federal area. The State may consider energy and other
factors in determining the appropriate degree of protection for
an integral vista under § 169A.
There were several comments which expressed the opinion
that the role of the Federal Land Manager should be strengthened
in the regulations. Most of these commenters were concerned
citizens and several were from citizen's groups. It is felt
that the role of the Federal Land Manager, as outlined in the
final regulations, is a strong one, but to add to it would
intrude on the authority of the States as set forth in the Act.
4.4 INTEGRAL VISTAS
4.4.1 Summary
Under the authority of Section 169A, the final regulations
require the States to protect the integral vistas of any manda-
tory Class I Federal area from visibility impairment caused by
new or existing sources. This protection must be adequate to
make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal
over 10-15 years considering the cost of compliance, the time
necessary for compliance, the energy and nonair quality environ-
mental impacts of compliance, the remaining useful life of the
source, and the degree of improvement in visibility anticipated
163
-------
to result from control. A State in its initial SIP revision
would have to protect an integral vista only if it was notified
of the integral vista at least six months before plan submis-
sion. With regard to permitting new sources, integral vistas
identified at least six months before submission of a complete
permit application would have to be protected. Under the final
regulations, integral vistas are not protected under the provi-
sions of Section 165(d).
4.4.2 EPA's Proposal
The proposed regulations would have required a State to
protect any integral vista—defined as a view from within a
Class I area of a scenic landmark located outside the area's
boundary—identified by the Federal Land Manager within 90 days
of promulgation, unless the State in its SIP demonstrated to the
Administrator that the Federal Land Manager did not identify the
integral vista according to certain criteria EPA proposed for
comment. A vista identified by the Federal Land Manager more
than 90 days after promulgation would under the proposal have
had to have been protected from visibility impairment not later
than at the time of the periodic review of the long-term strat-
egy.
In its statement that accompanied the proposed regulations,
EPA described in detail its approach to integral vistas, as well
as alternatives to the proposed approach. See 45 FR 34775-
34776. EPA recognized that the issue would be controversial on
both policy and legal grounds.
Specifically, with respect to the legal authority for its
position, EPA noted that it was aware of comment that Congress
did not intend to protect integral vistas under Section
169A(a)(l) which limits the geographic extent of the visibility
to be protected to that "in" mandatory Class I Federal areas.
EPA replied that protecting integral vistas under authority of
Section 169A(a)(l) was 1) consistent with the statutory language
because visibility is a perceptual value that occurs "in" the
Class I area; and 2) supported by the legislative history of
164
-------
Section 169A and much of the legislation creating the Class I
areas, both of which allude to Congress1 desire to protect
extensive vistas and expansive scenic views.
4.4.3 Public Comment
No single aspect of EPA's proposal received more comment
than this issue of integral vistas. A large number of individ-
uals supported protection of integral vistas (many also urged
protection for views from outside the Class I area looking into
the area), as did several environmental groups and the Depart-
ment of the. Interior. These persons noted that one's views
while in an area do not stop artificially at the area's perim-
eter, and that the ability to see distant objects is often
central to the visitor's enjoyment of an area. These persons
did not, however, make any significant arguments as to EPA's
legal authority to protect such vistas under Section 169A other
than to cite with approval the rationale EPA set out with its
proposal.
Other commenters, including most of those representing
States and industry, opposed the requirement for protection of
integral vistas.14 They argued that Section 169A provides only
for visibility protection "in" mandatory Class I Federal areas,
and by definition objects of integral vistas lie outside the
area. Since Congress was obviously concerned with limiting its
untested, potentially costly visibility program, it would make
no sense, these commenters said, to infer that Congress by
implication intended to protect integral vistas and thereby
dramatically increase the land area to which the visibility
regulations would apply.
Congress, it was argued, referred directly to adjacent
areas (as in Section 165(e)) when it, in fact, had them in mind.
Here, Congress expressly precluded in Section 169A(e) a require-
ment for uniform buffer zones. Finally, since such regulation
14
The United States Department of Agriculture and the United
States Department of Energy also opposed this requirement.
165
-------
would subject non-Federal lands to Federal land use restrictions
without any express grant of authority by Congress, constitu-
tional issues of state sovereignty would be raised under the
tenth amendment, as well as issues of compensation for taking of
private land under the fifth amendment.
These commenters also expressed policy reasons for opposing
required protection for integral vistas. A requirement that
integral vistas be protected under § 165(d) could, they said,
greatly expand the number of new facilities affected, the number
of prime sites (including prime sites for energy-producing
facilities) foreclosed, and the incremental costs for new
sources. This would result they contended, because* under
§ 165(d)(2)(C)(ii) a permit would have to be denied if an ad-
verse impact of- an integral vista would result. Additionally,
some States objected to what they viewed as undue intrusions by
EPA into the traditional State area of land use regulation. At
the same time, however, many industry and State commenters,
while disputing the authority and wisdom of protecting integral
vistas under Section 169A, recognized that there may be areas
outside mandatory Class I Federal areas where visibility is an
important aesthetic value and should be protected. If integral
vistas are to be protected, these commenters concluded, the
States should be allowed to balance competing interests such as
energy and economic concerns.
4.4.4 EPA's Response
After careful review of the extensive comments sought and
received on this issue, the Administrator has determined that
Congress did intend that the States protect the integral vistas
of mandatory Class I Federal areas under § 169A. EPA agrees
with the industry and State commenters to the extent that the
State, in determining the appropriate measure of protection for
any integral vista, may consider competing interests such as the
cost and energy effects. This is because protection for inte-
gral vistas is authorized and being required under Section
166
-------
169A—which requires only that "reasonable progress" (a term
that allows "balancing" of interests) towards the national
visibility goal be assured and not, as originally proposed, also
under § 165.
For the reasons set out in the statement accompanying its
proposal*. EPA believes visibility "in" (§ 169A(a)(l)) a manda-
tory Class I Federal area includes integral vistas. Although
§ 165(d) speaks of the air quality related values (including
visibility) "of" a Federal Class I area, in light of public
comments the Administrator has concluded that Congress did not
under § 165 intend similar protection of integral vistas. This
different interpretation is based on legislative history and the
statutory framework indicating Congress' intent that the sub-
stantive requirements of Section 169A be a "separate approach"
from that in Section 165, which deals with the PSD program. H.
Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 205.
Visibility protection in the PSD program is under § 165(d).
This language in § 165(d) concerning the "air quality-related
values (including visibility) of a Class I area" came from the
1977 Senate bill. Neither the 1976 nor 1977 Senate bill, how-
ever, contained the parenthetical reference to visibility as an
air quality-related value. In fact, neither the 1976 Senate
Report nor the 1976 Conference Report discussed visibility as a
protected value. The parenthetical inclusion of visibility was
only added in conference in 1977. By contrast, § 169A was pre-
sent in the 1977 House bill, and was fully considered by both
the House and conference committee. It, therefore, appears to
the Administrator that the careful policy considerations and
choices made by Congress in § 165(d), which were limited to the
physical boundaries of Class I areas, focused on air quality-re-
lated values apart from visibility, and that by adding visibil-
ity to § 165(d) Congress did not intend to extend coverage of
that provision beyond the geographic boundaries of the areas.
It is unlikely that Congress intended to include integral vistas
by use of that term.
167
-------
This conclusion is also supported by the stringent require-
ment in Section 165(d) (2)(C)(ii) that the State deny a PSD
permit to construct if it is satisfied with the Federal Land
Manager's demonstration that an adverse impact on air quality-
related values would result. As the Senate report shows, Con-
gress was aware that with this provision it was giving the
Federal Land Managers a "powerful tool" which should be wielded
"aggressive[ly]" to "protect the air quality-related values for
future generations." S. Rep. No. 95-127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess.
at 36. To conclude that in this section, Congress contemplated
that integral vistas were protected as part of the Class I area
ignores the origin of this language, and would thereby greatly
magnify the potential effect of an already powerful statutory
provision. The Administrator believes, rather, that Section 165
represents a deliberate balancing by Congress of air quality-re-
lated values (apart from visibility) and other factors, a bal-
ancing premised on the known geography and boundaries of Class I
areas, which did not include the concept of integral vistas.
In § 169A, by contrast, Congress was focusing specifically
on visibility, and had the occasion to make the policy choices
and balances with respect to visibility in particular. As noted
in the proposal (45 Federal Register 34776), the legislative
history of § 169A indicates that in making these choices Con-
gress did include protection of integral vistas of mandatory
Class I Federal areas. The balance it struck, however, was
different from that in § 165(d). Instead of deciding conclu-
sively that air quality related values within the boundaries of
these areas could not be adversely affected [§ 165(d)(2)(c)
(ii)], Congress in § 169A provided for protection of all visi-
bility values in mandatory Class I Federal areas (including
integral vistas), but limited the protection by requiring only
reasonable progress towards the national goal, and by leaving
the balancing to the SIP process under § 169A. Unlike the con-
clusive balance of § 165(d)(2)(c)(ii), the reasonable progress
criterion allows the State to balance costs, energy concerns,
and other factors.
168
-------
This interpretation will not inappropriately curtail
energy or other economic development, as some commenters pre-
dicted, because today's rule (unlike the proposal) protects
integral vistas only under § 169A, which allows the State to
balance energy and economic costs, among others.
Because under § 169A most new major sources will be re-
viewed for their affect on integral vistas previously identi-
fied, the situation would not result, as EPA erroneously sug-
gested in the statement accompanying its proposal, in such
vistas being protected by one program under § 169A and impaired
by another -under PSD. Rather, these integral vistas will be
protected fully under § 169A, which covers both existing and new
sources.
Since the protection these regulations give integral vistas
hardly amounts to making them "buffer zones," let alone "uni-
form" buffer zones, they are not precluded under § 169A(e).
See, also, 45 Federal Register 34776. In response to other
comments, EPA notes that since § 169A protects only visibility
"in" an area, the protected perception must occur in an area and
cannot, as many commenters urged, include perceptions of the
area from outside the area's boundaries.
Finally, since Congress has authorized the protection of
integral vistas, and since these regulations give the States
freedom to balance energy, economic and other relevant factors
regarding the measure of protection afforded, the Administrator
does not believe that the arguments of one commenter concerning
the constitutional issues that would be raised if such were not
the case now raise serious questions. See e.g., McCoy-Elkhorn
Coal Corp v. EPA, —F.2d.— (6th Cir. 6/2/80) regarding Con-
gress1 authority under the commerce clause. In particular, the
Administrator notes that, without violating the Fifth Amendment,
the Federal government may execute laws that affect economic
values or property interests. As the United States Supreme
Court said in Penn Central Trans. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S.
104, 124 (1978), a taking is unlikely when "interference [with
property] arises from some public program adjusting the benefits
and burdens of economic life to promote the common good."
169
-------
4.4.5 How It Works
Today's promulgation allows the Federal Land Manager to
identify "integral vistas" according to criteria the Federal
Land Manager develops. Any integral vista must be important to
the visitor's visual experience of the area.
In response to numerous comments that.the public should be
able to participate in this identification process, the final
rule requires notice to the public and an opportunity for public
comment regarding the criteria for identifying an integral
vista. After the Federal Land Manager identifies an integral
vista, the Federal Land Manager must notify the State. Unless
the State determines that the Federal Land Manager's identifica-
tion was not in accordance with the criteria, the State must
list the integral vista in its SIP, and require in its revised
plan measures that would protect from visibility impairment any
integral vista the Federal Land Manager identified at least six
months before plan submission. Any integral vista the Federal
Land Manager identified later would have to be listed in the
State plan at the earliest opportunity, unless the State found
the identification unreasonable.
The State plan must also protect the visibility values of
any integral vista from impairment caused by a new source re-
viewed under § 51.307 of the final regulations where the inte-
gral vista was identified at least six months before submission
of a complete permit application. EPA has added this six months
notification requirement in response to comments that it would
allow time for the business planning proposed new sources need.
Any shorter period would create too much uncertainty for new
sources.
EPA also proposed that no integral vistas could be identi-
fied after December 31, 1985, by which time EPA was advised the
Federal Land Managers would have completed their development of
certain area management plans which could lead to identification
of additional integral vistas. EPA is retaining this provision
170
-------
in response to comments that it provides additional certainity
for new sources.
Since, as noted above, the requirement for protection of
integral vistas comes from Section 169A, measures the State
adopts to protect such vistas may reflect consideration of the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the
energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance,
and the remaining useful life of any affected existing source
and equipment therein.
4.5 LONG-TERM STRATEGIES
Some of the commenters felt the periodic review of the
long-term strategy should be every five years instead of every
three years. The Agency believes that research and technology
is progressing so rapidly in the area of visibility cause,
measurement, and control that three years is a reasonable time
period to review the State Implementation Plan. Congress was
vitally concerned that progress toward the national visibility
goal begin as soon as possible. See H. Rep. 95-294, supra at
206. What is required is review, not total revision, every
three years. This review may suggest that only a partial revi-
sion to the State's visibility regulations is appropriate.
One commenter suggested that the affect of new sources on
visibility in the mandatory Class I Federal area, as required by
the long-term strategy, should not be affected by visibility
impairment caused by sources which existed prior to August 7,
1977. In particular, this commenter said, the long-term strat-
egy should not be affected by sources causing visibility impair-
ment which existed prior to August 7, 1962, and which are there-
fore exempt from mandatory application of BART. It is reason-
able and necessary, however, to consider present visibility
impairment in planning and developing a SIP and in the long-term
171
-------
planning in order to make reasonable movement toward the nation-
al visibility goal, and there is no basis in the Act for ignor-
ing these sources. Under Section 169A(b)(2) of the Act, the
visibility regulations must "...require each applicable imple-
mentation plan for a State ... to contain such emission
limits, schedules of compliance, and other measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress. . . ." To consider new
sources in the absence of existing sources would lead to a
confusing, misdirected program that would not assure reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal, as the Act re-
quires. Although such sources are not subject to the mandatory
BART requirement, they may need to be controlled to make rea-
sonable progress toward the national visibility goal.
One commenter stated that parties other, than the Federal
Land Managers should be consulted during review of the long-term
strategy. Before any SIP could be revised there would, however,
be a public comment period and a public hearing where a citizen
or industrial representative could comment on the SIP revision.
There is nothing in the regulation to prohibit participation by
a person or group in the SIP revision process.
One commenter said the long-term strategy unduly interferes
with State prerogatives. In fact, the visibility regulations
give the States a great deal of flexibility in determining the
measures they choose to assure reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. As the Act requires, EPA has provided
measures for the States to consider, but left the actual "mix"
of measures adopted to the States' discretion.
4.6 BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY
A number of comments were received on the concept of Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART). This is part of Section
51.302 dealing with State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
requirements.
Several members of the public, industry, and agencies
complained that the SIP revision cannot be accomplished in nine
months as the regulations require. The nine month time frame is
172
-------
manadatory (Section 406(d)(2)(B)) in the Clean Air Act (CAA)
amendments of 1977. Therefore this time cannot be extended by
rulemaking. Although EPA recognizes that the nine month time
period is tight, States should be able to meet it given the
limited scope of this first phase of the visibility protection
program.
Several commenters were concerned that cost would not be
considered in the BART analysis. In fact the BART guidelines,
Part I and Part II, as well as the regulations, require retrofit
costs to be considered. In addition, Section 51.302(c)(4)(iii)
states: "If" the State determines that technological or economic
limitations...to a particular existing stationary facility would
make the imposition of an emission standard infeasible it may
...instead prescribe a design, equipment, work practice, or
other operational standard, or combination thereof, to require
the application of BART." Costs will be determined on a case by
case basis.
One element of EPA's proposed long-term strategy was that
the State must review the affects on visibility of any pollutant
emitted by an existing major stationary source when the Admini-
strator determined that new technology is reasonably available
to control emissions of that pollutant. The State would then
have to set an emission^ limitation representing BART for that
pollutant if no control had previously been required for that
pollutant pursuant to a BART analysis. EPA explained in the
statement accompanying its proposal that the purpose of the
requirement for review was to ensure that States consider new
technology as it becomes reasonably available. In addition, EPA
discussed some problems with its proposed approach, listed
alternative approaches, and encouraged commenters to discuss the
legal and policy bases for any alternative they would recommend.
Most commenters did not address this issue, and the re-
sponse from those that did were mixed. Representatives . of in-
dustry complained that there was no authority for the require-
ment because 1) once BART emission limitations are set, a
173
-------
source's obligation is limited to "maintain[ing]" those limita-
tions, § 169A(b)(2)(A), 2) the clear implication from the re-
quirement in § 169A for BART and long-term strategies is that
BART is independent of the latter requirement and, once imposed,
a state cannot be forced to impose new limitations under its
long-term strategy; and 3) where Congress wanted reanalysis, as
in § lll(b)(l)(B), it said so explicitly. In addition, one
State complained that the requirement would be a "moving target"
that would subject sources to uncertainty. On the other hand,
representatives of environmental groups supported the require-
ment, as did several other members of the public.
Today's rule retains the requirements that the State must
reanalyze for BART each pollutant for which no control under the
visibility program has previously been required. The require-
ment is merely a recognition that certain emission control
devices for a pollutant like NOX that contributes to visibility
impairment may not be available now, but may be available later.
The requirement is not one of "re-BARTing," but is simply one of
timing the initial imposition of control representing BART. The
requirement has been moved from the section on long-term strate-
gies to the section on BART requirements to clarify this.
Today's rule, unlike the proposal, does not require that a
pollutant for which a BART emission limitation has been set be
reviewed when the Administrator determines that new, more-effec-
tive control technology for the pollutant is reasonably availa-
ble. The proposal did require a review in such a case because a
State would be free under § 116 to require additional controls
for a pollutant even where BART had previously been determined
for the pollutant. Today's rule omits this requirement in re-
sponse to comments and to eliminate the above-mentioned confu-
sion regarding "re-BARTing." In addition, EPA believes the Act
does not mandate such a requirement as a minimum condition of
plan approval. EPA continues to believe that review and, where,
appropriate, recalculation of the BART emission limitation when
174
-------
the Administrator determines new control technology is reason-
ably available could be a good measure for a State, in it's dis-
cretion, to adopt as part of its long-term strategy, regardless
of the control history of the pollutant of concern.
Some commenters suggested that the State periodically re-
view existing stationary facilities to determine if new tech-
nology is applicable. The Agency does not believe that this is
appropriate because a substantial burden would be placed on the
State to examine new technology, whereas the Administrator, under
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act is already charged with this
responsibility. The Agency expects that the Administrator's
decision to call for .reanalysis will be usually based on pro-
mulgation of additional new source performance standards and on
an analysis of their applicability to existing stationary
sources.
4.7 PRESCRIBED BURNING
Many comments were received concerning prescribed burning.
Almost all the comments received were opposed to any further
regulation of prescribed burning. It was argued that prescribed
burning is not a major source, is preferable to wildfires, is
part of good forest management, and is preferable to chemical
and mechanical methods of land preparation. .Fire, these com-
menters noted, is part of the natural background, and regulation
of prescribed burning was not intended by Congress.
Although the Agency agrees that forest fires occur natural-
ly r prescribed burning by definition is accomplished by man for
the purpose of conducting business. Much of the forestry in-
dustry burns the nonuseful portion of trees after harvesting.
Agricultural burning is also accomplished for the purpose of
preparing fields for use by man. Since these are done primarily
for man's convenience and indeed to man's advantage, prescribed
burning must be considered a manmade cause of visibility impair-
ment.
175
-------
EPA continues to recognize, however, that prescribed fire
is an ecologically sound forest and management tool used both
inside and outside Class I areas. The Agency does not intend
that prescribed burning be eliminated or unnecessarily restrict-
ed, but only that its affects on visibility be reduced where the
State determines it is feasible and appropriate to do so.
Specifically, the final visibility regulations require the State
to consider the impact of prescribed burning on visibility in
the mandatory Class I Federal area and to examine, and adopt if
necessary, regulations which would define the most efficient,
environmentally sound methods for disposing of agricultural and
forest wastes so as to reduce the effect of the burning on
visibility.
The requirement for consideration of prescribed burning is
only in the long-term strategy. As noted, the State must con-
sider smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes. However, as the comments recommended, the
language "including such plans as currently exist within the
State for the purposes" was added to ensure consideration of
existing smoke management systems and regulations. The long-
term strategy requirement for examination of smoke management
techniques cannot be deleted because of the large potential
impact on visibility of mandatory Class I Federal areas. As
with other elements of the long-term strategy, the State shall
take into account the costs of compliance, nonair quality en-
vironmental impacts and so on. Judging from the comments re-
ceived, all these factors would affect a management program.
4.8 PHASED APPROACH
Comments were received from industry, citizens groups, and
private citizens concerning the phased approach to regulatory
development for visibility impairment. _ Most of the comments
favored the concept itself. Some of the industrial commenters,
however, suggested alternate timetables for Phase I. Two of the
176
-------
industry commenters felt more research should be done even
before Phase I rulemaking is promulgated. Many industries felt
that EPA should postpone substantive requirements for five
years. Several commenters even offered schedules for the Agency
to follow in the interim until the final regulations were pro-
mulgated. EPA did not accept these suggestions since there is
sufficient information and data available to start the process
of developing State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the control
of reasonably attributable visibility impairment. As a result,
EPA must not postpone what it can do now since, as Congress
recognized, - "if the [national visibility] goal is ever to be
achieved, progress in that direction must begin now." H. Rep.
No. 95-294, supra, at 206.
Some commenters suggested that additional guidance is
needed before a BART analysis under Phase I could be completed.
These commenters failed to recognize the limited scope of these
regulations. The Agency agrees that further research will be
necessary before one can accurately identify and control sources
which cause or contribute to all types of visibility impairment,
but Phase I does not require such comprehensive knowledge.
Reasonably attributable impairment can be addressed now and in
some cases controlled without a detailed knowledge of natural
conditions or frequency of impairment, as discussed elsewhere in
this response. (It should be noted, for example, that while
"significant impairment" takes into account the frequency of
impairment, a precise forecast of "frequency" may not be neces-
sary since it is likely that any impairment would be considered
significant unless it occurred at such times or such places that
it did not interfere with the public's enjoyment of the area).
The phased approach does allow additional time for research in
the areas needed.
Several commenters wanted a specific date for Phase II. It
is impossible, however, to set a date for addressing problems
such as regional haze and urban plumes until more research has
been conducted and the results evaluated. The Agency is working
177
-------
towards the development of Phase II of the regulations, but
monitoring techniques must be improved in order to provide a
data base on specific levels of visibility impairment as the
result of multiple sources problems. Models of complex sources
need additional research and are not available at this time.
4.9 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
There were commenters who responded on issues of technical
guidance for the proposed visibility regulations. Most of these
comments addressed the modeling and monitoring aspects that are
needed to support or demonstrate compliance with regulations
which will be developed by the States. There were also comments
by States and private citizens that guidance and additional data
were needed in this area to properly develop a revision to the
SIP.
4.9.1 Lack of Technical Tools and Scientific Data
Several of the State agencies felt that the cost of moni-
toring and equipment for the SIP revisions and for the long-term
strategy would be an excessive financial burden on them. The
mechanism in § 105 Grant applications is available to request
additional funding from EPA for this equipment.
EPA agrees that further research and additional technical
tools in the area of visibility impairment are needed, and is
committed to continuing research in order to provide these
tools. However, EPA feels the necessary technical tools are
available now to perform, within the Phase I program, a case-by-
case analysis on sources impacting on visibility of mandatory
Class I Federal areas and new sources which may impact on
Federal Class I areas.
4.9.2 Modeling Guidance—Workbook for Estimating Visibility
Impairment and Users Manual for Plume Visibility Model
It should be pointed out that although EPA solicited and
received comments on certain modeling guidance in connection
178
-------
with the proposed regulations, the final regulations do not
require the State to use such guidance. Since a State may, in
its discretion, use the guidance in implementing the visibility
program, EPA has revised the guidance in response to comments,
and provided the following discussion of comments on this guid-
ance as well.
Several commenters stated that visibility modeling is,
inaccurate, if not impossible, in areas of complex terrain and
at distances greater than 50 km from a source. We agree that
the uncertainty associated with the use of Gaussian models in-
creases as the distance from the source increases and in areas
of complex terrain. Modeling of plume dispersion at distances
of up to 100 km ideally would consider the spatial and temporal
variations in windspeed, wind direction, and stability that no
doubt have an influence on plume dispersion. However, as stated
in the Workbook, data with this kind of resolution are rarely,
if ever, available because of cost considerations connected with
data collection. Since a and a curves are derived largely
from atmospheric diffusion experiments at close range, uncer-
tainties certainly do exist in their application at distances
more than 50 km from a source.
It is clear that complex terrain can dramatically influence
plume transport and dilution. As noted in the Workbook, complex
terrain can result in channeled or trapped flows and enhanced
plume dilution due to mechanical turbulence.
All of the above notwithstanding, we believe that realistic
estimates of visibility impairment can be made using the Work-
book and PLUVUE model. Considerable flexibility is built into
the model so that the user can account for complex meteorology.
For example, the user can adjust diffusion coefficients on the
basis of measured plume or tracer data. Also, the user has
other techniques to account for changes in meteorological condi-
tions. It should be noted that none of the commenters offered
an alternative to the Gaussian model.
179
-------
There were also several comments on the use of the con-
trast/contrast change criterion of 0.1 and the AE(L*a*b*) crite-
rion of 4 for worst-day impacts was questioned. If visibility
impairment resulted in a contrast/contrast change of 0.1 on the
worst day in a year, considering typical frequency distributions
of impact, one would expect that perceptible impairment would
occur, but only a few days per year. Thus, these criteria are
considered to be reasonably conservative definitions of the
magnitude and frequency of occurrence of visibility impairment
that would not be judged significant or adverse. The criteria
are not meant to be interpreted as "perceptibility thresholds."
Modern psychology discounts the notion that there is a clearly
defined threshold below which a stimulus does not produce a
response.
There were some comments that since Gaussian models in some
cases cannot accurately predict ground-level concentrations,
this represents evidence that plume visual effects cannot be
predicted with a Guassian model. This argument is not neces-
sarily valid because with visual effects we are concerned pri-
marily with plume centerline line-of-sight integrals,.not with
ground-level time-averaged concentrations. For typical line-of-
sight geometries the visual impact is largely independent of the
assumed plume width (a ) and is dependent only on the vertical
depth of the plume (crz)- Thus, several sources of uncertainty
are eliminated in visibility modeling vis-a-vis air quality
N.
modeling.
Several commenters stated that because of approximations
made to compute the diffuse radiation field, the model is inap-
propriate. Although diffuse radiation calculations affect the
absolute intensity (radiance) of the sky or other viewed object,
the relative changes in sky intensity caused by air pollution
are not sensitive so the accuracy of the diffuse calculation.
Virtually all of the visibility impairment parameters are rela-
tive intensity measures (via., contrast, blue-red ratio, visual
range, and AE). Indeed, recent work suggests that the simple
180
-------
formulas that neglect multiple scattering are as accurate in
predicting these relative measures as the more sophisticated
models. It should be noted that even though calculations are
insensitive to diffuse intensity calculations, model comparisons
with measured sky intensities show that the diffuse radiation
approximation used in PLUVUE is reasonably accurate.
One commenter questioned the use of the lowest magnitude of
impact associated with a given class of meteorological condi-
tions in cumulative frequency distributions. It is appropriate
to use the lowest magnitude of impact associated with a class of
meteorological conditions when cumulative frequency distribu-
tions are plotted. For example, if windspeeds less than 2 m/s
occur 10 percent of the time, we would say that the cumulative
frequency of impacts greater than that associated with 2 m/s is
10 percent. We would not select the magnitude associated with,
say, 1 m/s winds to characterize this point on the cumulative
frequency distributions.
Finally there were some comments on the assumption that
visual range and ambient ozone concentrations are independent of
windspeed, wind direction, and stability. Of course visual
range is not completely independent of meteorological condi-
tions. However, for nonurban sites visual range is largely
independent of wind direction and stability (time of day) and
that only at very high windspeeds (>10 m/s) does visual range
decrease, presumably due to windblown dust. EPA is not aware of
any studies of the dependence of nonurban ozone concentration on
meteorological conditions. Certainly if one has an extensive
data base, one would be advised to compile a five-way joint
frequency distribution of windspeed, wind direction, stability,
ozone concentration, and background visual range, and to use
this joint frequency distribution to determine the frequency of
occurrence of worst-case conditions.
181
-------
4.9.3 Monitoring Guidance
It should be noted that although EPA solicited and received
comments on certain monitoring guidance in connection with the
proposed regulations, the final regulations do not require the
State to use such guidance. Since a State may, in its discre-
tion, use the guidance in implementing the visibility program,
EPA has revised the guidance in response to comments, and pro-
vided the following discussion of comments on this guidance as
well.
The majority of comments on the subject of^visibility moni-
toring expressed the opinion that any guidance on visibility
monitoring was premature. Many of these same commenters be-
lieved the "Interim Guidance for Visibility Monitoring" (interim
guidance) contained insufficient information to establish an
active monitoring program.
The interim guidance is just that - interim. It was not
intended that the document be a specific, all encompassing
guidance on visibility monitoring. Rather, it recommends and
discusses methodologies and techniques which would be useful to
those parties which desire, or find it necessary, to monitor
visibility. Ongoing research programs sponsored by EPA and
Federal land managing agencies, as well as industry, are col-
lecting and evaluating data in an effort to better define spe-
cific techniques for visibility monitoring. The Agency's Office
of Research and Development now has a program underway which
would further evaluate methodologies for visibility monitoring
with the objective of providing definitive method descriptions
in up-dated versions of the interim guidance. These revisions
would be released as new information becomes available and the
evaluation progresses. This progress would eventually lead to a
standardized method (or methods) for visibility monitoring.
A large number of the comments received on the interim
guidance criticized the broad terms used to define visibility.
Commenters described the definition as "vague" and "subjective."
182
-------
EPA believes with our present knowledge of visibility a defini-
tion such as this cannot be strictly quantitative.
One commenter suggested that the definition of visibility
as contained in Webster's dictionary be adopted. EPA agrees
that the initial phrase of this definition "the degree or extent
to which something is visible" is an appropriate one to describe
visibility and it has been included in the document's defini-
tion. However, this commenter infers this definition relates to
or includes that of visual range. This definition should not be
a surrogate or substitute for visual range. EPA recognizes that
the appropriate electro-optical parameters that characterize the
perception of visual air quality should be measured or moni-
tored, but this should not eliminate the use of visual range in
describing visibility. Visual range is one indicator of atmo-
spheric clarity, and because of its historical popularity re-
mains a useful concept for the lay person.
Another major criticism of the interim guidance involved
the apparent lack of guidance for using human observers to rate
or characterize the perception of visual air quality. EPA
recognizes the importance of relating human perception of visual
air -quality to measured electro-optical parameters. However,
specific guidance on this subject is beyond the scope of the
interim guideline. Ongoing research programs are addressing
this problem and evaluating methodologies for establishing a
human-observer-based visibility index.
One commenter stated that EPA's proposed visibility program
missed the essential point of visibility protection - the pre-
servation of the public's enjoyment of the Class I Federal areas
described in the Act. It was suggested that a quantitative
estimate of scenic beauty be used to determine what value the
public places on a Class I Federal area. Therefore, evaluation
of the Class I Federal area would be in terms of public enjoy-
ment rather than visual air quality.
EPA contends that "public enjoyment" is a socio-economic
phenomenon! that varies according to a person's demographic
183
-------
background, level of affluence, state of mind, etc., and an
evaluation of this nature cannot, from our present regulatory
viewpoint, be based solely on a measure of scenic beauty.
Scenic beauty may play an important part in this evaluation, but
it is certainly not a substitute.
The same commenter felt that appropriate guidance should be
included in the interim guidance for determining vista and sky
color. Research in this area has not progressed to the point
that one method is clearly better for characterizing atmospheric
discoloration. Thus, any guidance in this area is inappropriate
at this time.
Another issue commented on frequently concerned the ap-
parent lack of focus on Phase I visibility impairment, i.e.,
visible plumes. Commenters felt the interim guidance only
discussed visibility monitoring as it related to regional haze.
Section 4 of the document discusses the special case of monitor-
ing visible plumes.
Several commenters suggested that the physical limitations
of existing mathematical formulisms, such as those of the
Kaschmeider relationship, and 0.02 as the contrast threshold,
should be more thoroughly discussed. It is simply not practical
to include as part of the interim guidance all the background
information available on the physical and mathematical formulas
and theories which apply to visibility. Limitations in mathe-
matical formulisms and monitoring techniques, along with any
errors incurred by their use are discussed in a number of tech-
nical reports. References are included for those readers inter-
ested in obtaining this background information.
Several commenters stated that the interim guidance is
"prejudicial toward use of telephetometers for measuring con-
trast." Others felt the interim guidance recommended only the
telephetometer as an instrument to measure visibility. While a
two-point multi-wavelength telephetometer was the recommended
instrument for determining contrast, the telephetometer was not
the only instrument evaluated and discussed. To the contrary, a
184
-------
number of instruments, which tend to complement each other, are
recommended. Specifically, nephelometers, cameras equipped with
color slide film, fine particulate monitors, and meteorological
instruments are discussed as devices which make up a complete
visibility monitoring program. Federal or State agencies or
industrial clients who anticipate the need for a visibility
monitoring program should evaluate each of these techniques, and
choose those devices best suited to their specific monitoring
objectives.
There was some discussion on the use of photographs as a
tool in visibility monitoring. One commenter felt photography
should be used more quantitatively since it is conducive to
excellent quality control, and the results obtained were com-
parable to those of a telephetometer. Research has shown that
comparable results are not always obtained with photographs. An
error of at least 10 percent in measured contrast has occurred
when using photographic techniques. Therefore, EPA recommends
that photography be used for establishing a qualitative data
base, while electro-optical instruments should be used for
quantitative measurements.
Other comments concerning photography as a method by which
to evaluate visibility dealt with the frequency with which
photographs should be taken. EPA has found that photographs
taken three times a day of the selected vista is sufficient for
most monitoring purposes. However, the data can be supplemented
by more photographs, if the particular situation warrants it.
However, the Agency does believe that the suggested method is
more efficient and will not compromise the quality of the re-
sults .
Many comments were received concerning the limitations of
measuring surface meteorological conditions and using this data
when evaluating visibility. EPA agrees there are restrictions
on the use of such data. Surface meteorology should only be
used in conjunction with required data and in special case
studies. Conventional meteorological measurements should, when
185
-------
possible, be supplemented by measurements of mixing depths, wind
directions and speed along the sight path, as well as vertical
profiles. The interim guidance has been amended to reflect this
information.
Comments were received on the potential use of airplanes
equipped with monitoring instruments as devices for establishing
whether plumes were impacting a Federal Class I area. One
commenter felt this method was too "exotic" to be useful in
determining "reasonable attribution." There are several situa-
tions which could occur where a plume could impact a Class I
Federal area, but the origin of the plume could not immediately
be seen. EPA believes that tracing the plume in this manner to
determine its origin is not "exotic" and is, in fact, entirely
appropriate.
It was suggested that the interim guidance did not ade-
quately discuss the volume scattering function. The document
has been amended to better describe this term. Other commenters
felt that measured parameters should relate directly to what an
observer perceives as well as sees. EPA agrees and the document
has been amended to reflect this attitude.
A specific comment received stated
" N is not the sum of
L» x.
attenuated inherent radiance and energy scattered by the inter-
vening atmosphere." The equation is this:
tNr = V
tNoT
N is the inherent target radiance that is attenuated by the
intervening atmosphere by a fraction T while Nr* is the result
of atmospheric scattering between the observer and target (See:
Reference No . 6 in the interim guidance ) . There are no other
contributions. For simplicity, units were not specifically men-
tioned and are not necessary for the relative calculations used
in the document (See reference list in the interim guidance for
more information and detailed discussions). . . '
A large majority of commenters discussed the limitations
associated with participate sampling. Since these comments
186
-------
tended to be very specific, a comment/response format seemed the
most appropriate way to address these comments or concerns.
Comment: A sulfate/nitrate artifact problem might contribute
erroneously to apparent particle concentration.
Response: The production of particles on sample substrates from
gaseous pollutants (artifact sulfates/nitrates) can be a prob-
lem. Artifact production is related to factors such as the
nature of the sample substrate and the concentrations of the
precursor gaseous pollutants. In most of the visibility pro-
tected areas the levels of SO2 and NO are very low suggesting
J\,
no serious artifact problems. There are protected areas with
high concentrations of these gases. For these situations addi-
tional precautions in the choice of treatment of sampling sub-
strates must be exercised. The interim guidance document was
not written at a level of detail which would allow discussion of
this problem. References which discuss establishment of an
inhalable particulate network are included in the document.
Comment; There can be an interpretation problem caused by
occasional capture of large particles on the small particle
receptor area (fine particle stage) of a particle sampler.
Response: Large particles erroneously captured on the fine
particle stage can be minimized by various operational proce-
dures for most size segregating samplers. Again this .level of
information is beyond the intended scope of the interim guidance
document. A reference which discusses fine particulate network
is included in the document.
Comment: It is unlikely that particle data can be of use in
visibility phenomena because particle sampling is performed at a
point in space while visibility is an integrated measure over
the entire optical path.
Response: In most situations there will be a sufficient number
of cases where the point measurement (particle sample) will be
representative of the long path array of particles such that a
187
-------
meaningful relationship can be developed. A large degree of
nonhomogeneity would complicate or perhaps defeat this scheme.
However, a comparison of telephotometer (long path) and nephe-
lometer (point) data would be one method to identify such situa-
tions and avoid mistaken assumptions. Particle sampling is
important in trying to establish the composition, etc., of the
visibility impairment. This in no way implies that particulate
data can be related to a visibility impairment in every case.
Comment; It is virtually impossible to identify specific
sources of particles by chemical and morphological analysis.
Response: While it is not always possible to identify the
relative contributions of specific sources to the particle
loading, it is often possible to distinguish various source
types. For example, windblown dust is .quite distinctive physi-
cally and chemically from automotive emissions. Other distinc-
tive categories include vegetative burning, smelting, fossil
fuel buring facilities and sea salt. If a source category is
identified the specific source can sometimes be inferred by
other available data or by conducting specially designed addi-
tional field research.
Comment; The guidelines do not include adequate information on
the monitoring for chemical speciation and size distribution of
all relevant pollutants.
Response; Specific details of a particle monitoring effort
should be designed for each program. Factors such as the ex-
pected nature, persistence and concentrations of the pollutants
of interest must be balanced against practical considerations of
logistics and budget. The guidance document was not designed to
provide the level of detailed information necessary to replace
program specific monitoring design.
Comment; Paragraph 2 on Page 21 of the monitoring guidance-
summarizes particle sampling and analysis techniques but does
not specify which to use.
188
-------
Response; Somewhat more specific guidance is provided on pages
37 and 39. Detailed guidance is beyond the scope of the interim
guidance document. Program specific particle monitoring and
analysis design is recommended.
4.9.4 Best Available Retrofit Technology
PART I
Numerous comments were received which discussed the lack of
guidance on weighing the costs and benefits of visibility con-
trol. The commenters felt that specific guidance beyond that
included in the BART guideline was needed to weigh each relevant
factor and, specifically, to compare the anticipated improvement
in visibility with the cost of controlling emissions for that
level of improvement. At the same time, however, many of these
same commenters argued that States should have greater discre-
tion under the regulations in making BART determinations.
It is, of course, not possible to provide more specific
guidance on how a State should balance the various BART factors
while simultaneously giving the State more flexibility to strike
the balance as it deems appropriate in light of local and site-
specific considerations. A strictly quantitative approach,
however, is not necessarily the better alternative. The proce-
dures outlined in Part 1 allow States to consider local condi-
tions and circumstances in their BART decisionmaking. This
recognizes States have the 'most complete knowledge of local
factors which would affect the BART decision, and retains State
discretion to consider the factors in a case-by-case manner as
was intended by § 169A. The inappropriateness of EPA making
these decisions for the States is underscored by the fact that
the empirical techniques (as opposed to models) recommended in
the BART guideline do not yield the precise quantitative results
that would be helpful in making uniform judgments for all
sources on how the BART factors should be weighed.
Several commenters felt the comparison photographic tech-
nique as discussed in Part 1 was vague and subjective, and as
189
-------
such would not be useful in assessing the improvement in visi-
bility obtained by retrofitting controls.
The comparison photographic technique is an empirical
method by which relative improvement in visibility may be asses-
sed. There are obviously limitations in the use of the de-
scribed method. But, when applied with common sense engineering
judgment, we feel this technique can provide useful information
in evaluating the effect of retrofit controls on improvements in
visibility. If the State is uncomfortable with the results of
the method, or a compatible source cannot be located, other
techniques and information should be explored. The State can
then assess the comparison technique in the context of all other
available information and make a decision as to whether suffi-
ciently reliable information exists to reasonably estimate the
amount of improvement that would result from a given level of
control.
A few commenters suggested that the techniques described in
the BART guideline for fossil fuel fired power plants with a
generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts are not transfer-
able to other existing major facilities, and that the Agency
should provide specific guidance on sources r other than power
plants.
The Agency feels the design of the BART guideline, espe-
cially Part 1, is general enough to be useful to sources other
than power plants. Although some of the information is power
plant specific, the procedures outlined therein (See: Figures 1
and 2) may be applied to any source undergoing a BART', analysis.
Part II discusses more specifically retrofit alternatives for
power plants, but it too can provide information useful to
analyses of other sources. For example, the techniques for
evaluating the cost of a retrofit alternative for a power plant
may prove valuable when estimating retrofit costs of other
sources. Finally, the conference report makes clear that EPA
was to promulgate specific BART guidelines only for large power
plants, and allow the State greater discretion in determining
BART for other existing stationary facilities.
190
-------
On July 23, 1980, EPA announced the availability of the
revised BART guidelines. In these guidelines EPA said, for the
first time, that "BART for the majority of power plants under
consideration is the NSPS," and that a State would have to
provide a "detailed justification" for any departure from NSPS
level of control in setting BART.
Commenters complained vigorously that 1) the NSPS is for
new sources, and EPA did not develop information on retrofitting
technology during the NSPS rulemaking; 2) BART by statute must
balance costs against remaining useful life, degree of improve-
ment, etc., and that the presumption violates this, 3) retrofit
costs are higher than the costs of installing controls during
construction of a new plant, 4) it was unclear what sort of
"detailed justification" would overcome the presumption, and 5)
by failing to state any basis for the presumption, EPA violated
§ 307(d) and precluded meaningful comment.
The final rule and guidelines, in response to the comments
received, contain no presumption that BART for large power
plants is the NSPS level of control. Instead, the guidelines
state merely that the controls needed to meet NSPS limits for
power plants (40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Da) are reasonably
available to these sources. If this would represent more con-
trol than is required as BART in a given case, EPA could not
disapprove the plan on that basis since under Section 116 of the
Act a State is free to adopt controls more stringent than those
EPA requires as a minimum.
If, on the other hand, a State sets as BART an emission
limitation less stringent than the NSPS level of control, it
must explain in detail how it weighed the various BART factors,
and why the emission limit chosen is more appropriate than that
represented by the NSPS level of control. In this way, the NSPS
level of control serves not as a presumption for BART, but
merely as a basis for comparison that the State should use in
weighing, on a site-specific basis, the various BART factors.
As discussed in Part II of both the proposed and final BART
191
-------
guideline, retrofit controls that would allow a large power
plant to meet the NSPS level of control are, on an industry-wide
basis, technologically feasible and can be installed, as a
general matter, at a cost about 15 percent higher than the cost
of installing the controls during construction of a new source.
Part I of the proposed BART guideline stated that, in
determining BART under Phase I of the visibility protection
program, the State should consider what controls might be
imposed in future phases since "[i]t may be more feasible for
the source to control a 'future phase' visibility impairment in
conjunction with its Phase I requirements than to wait until the
impairment is formally regulated."
Several commenters complained that this statement contra-
dicted the main basis for EPA's phased approach, which is that
at present it is not possible to attribute Phase II impairments
to a source or determine the appropriate controls needed to
correct such impairments.
In its proposal, EPA was concerned that controls installed
for particulates in Phase I of the visibility protection program
could be incompatible with controls required to improve SO2-
caused visibility impairment in a later phase of the program.
Therefore, EPA urged the State to decide whether long-run ef-
ficiency and cost-savings would result by designing BART for
Phase I to be compatible with the control that might be required
in Phase II.
EPA continues to believe that control for particulate
emissions installed without consideration of the future need to
control SO2 emissions could result in particulate controls that
would be incompatible with necessary SO2 controls. EPA also
recognizes, however, that it is at present difficult to attrib-
ute SO2-caused impairment to a source and determine the degree
of control necessary to improve such impairment. Accordingly,
EPA has not required a State to impose in Phase I any SO2 con-
trols as BART simply because such controls may be required by a
later phase.
192
-------
The question remains under this phased approach as to
whether the environment or regulated industry should bear the
risk that a future phase may require additional (e.g., SO2)
control. The phased approach significantly defers the obliga-
tion Congress imposed on these major existing facilities that
impair visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas and EPA at
present believes that these sources, since they enjoy the bene-
fit of delay that this phased approach brings them, should also
bear any risk involved in that approach. Therefore, the BART
guideline states that, at present, EPA would not consider incom-
patible particulate controls installed under Phase I require-
ments as justification for not requiring SO2 controls under
Phase II. This issue will, however, be resolved in the public
rulemaking that will accompany Phase II of the visibility pro-
tection program, and EPA will not make a final decision until it
promulgates those regulations. EPA is announcing its tentative
position now, however, in order to give States and sources
advance notice of EPA's current views so they can plan accord-
ingly.
PART II
Comments on the technical aspects of the guidelines were
received both prior to proposal through NAPCTAC and after pro-
posal of the guidelines through a public comment period. All of
these comments were taken into account in promulgating the
guidance, specified for fossil fuel fired power plants as re-
quired by Section 169A.
The comments received on the guidelines presentation of the
state of the art for retrofit NO control contend that the
x
document fails to stress that adverse side effects of combustion
modification may limit attainment of maximum NO control. Other
X
comments were that the theory of NOv formation was not well
X
explained, and not enough emphasis was placed on the fact that
it might not be possible to limit NO emissions from existing
X
193
-------
steam generators to the same NOx limits that are achievable for
new steam generators. Although EPA believes these aspects are
adequately addressed, the guidelines have been revised to allow
State agencies to take the foregoing comments into account in
making decisions on the best available retrofit technology for
NO control.
It was suggested that the conclusions reached on the lowest
level of NO emissions that are achievable by combustion modifi-
cation were insufficiently supported in the document. Repeating
the basis for this conclusion is not necessary since the data
presented in the background information document for the new
source performance standards promulgated June 11, 1979 is the
data used in this guideline.
The thrust of comments from the power industry on the cost
of NO control are that: 1) the cost estimates are inaccurate,
and 2) the guidelines fail to take into account the cost of
derating for NOx control.
No data, however, were presented by the power industry
indicating whether the cost estimates were too high or too low.
If information had been provided for those power plants where
the modifications described in the document have been imple-
mented, the EPA would have been willing to consider changing the
cost estimates. In the absence of such information the EPA
decided to rely on the cost estimates of the document that were
derived after consultation with the four major power plant steam
generator manufacturers. (A related comment was that the guide-
lines for cost estimates should advise State agencies to consult
steam generator manufacturers and other combustion modification
experts on cost estimates. The guidelines have been revised to
recommend such action.)
In Section 2 of the document derating is characterized as
an undesirable NOx control technique. In response to comments,
additional discussion of the potential cost of derating has been,
added to Section 4. As discussed in Section 4, it was not
possible to provide guidelines for exact determination of the
194
-------
cost of derating. However, all of the primary cost elements are
identified for State agencies to take into account should derat-
ing- be considered. , , .- ,
The guidelines were criticized for being top simplistic in
specifying the size of ESP systems for various sulfur content
coals. The guidelines are intended to provide a basis for best
available retrofit technology decisions and are not intended to
be guidelines on how to accurately size an ESP system. The EPA
agrees with the comments that coal sulfur content is not the
only factor to be considered in sizing an ESP system or in
choosing between a hot side or a cold side ESP system. However,
if the size and the cost guidelines given are used, an ESP
system can be installed that will limit particulate emissions to
a level less than 0.03 pounds per million Btu for the capital
and annual costs estimated for the coal sulfur contents given in
the guidelines. This is because the size criteria of the docu-
ment are for the most difficult cases corresponding to coal
sulfur content. The guidelines have been revised to recommend
advice from ESP vendors to determine if smaller sized ESP
systems might achieve the 0.03 pound per million Btu particulate
control level.
Other comments alleged that the ESP cost estimates are
inaccurate and unsupported. The basis for the ESP cost esti-
mates is clearly stated and referenced. The cost estimates are
derived from those used in support of the new source performance
standards promulgated June 11, 1979. A fifteen percent allow-
ance has been added for the additional cost of ductwork for a
retrofit ESP system as compared with a new system. This fifteen
percent allowance was derived from analysis of ductwork cost
estimates provided by Pullman Kellogg Division of Pullman Incor-
porated. None of the comments included data on the actual costs
of retrofit ESP systems. Consequently, the cost estimates were
not revised.
It was suggested that ESP pressure drop should be 3 inches
of water rather than 1/2 inch of water. After reconsideration
195
-------
of the engineering aspects the EPA agrees that the 3 inch value
should be used. The guidelines have been revised accordingly
and the cost estimates are conservative enough to provide for
this change.
The prime comments on baghouses dealt with pressure drop
and cost estimates. Commenters felt pressure drop estimates
should be increased and that the cost estimates were inaccurate.
Again, no data were submitted to indicate if the cost estimates
were too high or too low, consequently, no changes were made to
the cost estimates. Based on comments and analysis of data on
power plant baghouses, the estimated pressure drop across bag-
houses was increased from 5 inches to 10 inches of water.
Review of the cost estimates showed that the cost estimates were
conservative enough to accommodate this change.
One comment was received suggesting that the size of bag-
houses required might be reduced by electrostatically charging
the particulates. EPA concluded that the technique is not
adequately demonstrated for power plant applications. However,
this technique is mentioned but not recommended in the guide-
lines for State agencies that might want to consider this inno-
vation.
There were comments that the guidelines were incorrectly
limited to lime and limestone scrubbing of low sulfur coals.
Consequently, the guidelines were revised to permit cost esti-
mates for a wide variety of SO2 control systems and coal sulfur
contents. After this revision there were comments that the
guidelines did not guide State agencies on which SO2 control
process should be selected. No changes were made regarding this
latter comment since, as pointed out in several other comments,
the factors that influence the choice of' a S02 control system
are site specific. Consequently, no specific guidance can be
given for this selection. a
Regarding comments that the guidelines should provide for
spare systems components, review of the basis for the cost
estimates showed that provision had been made for spare key
components of the systems. Consequently, no changes were made.
196
-------
There were several comments questioning the reliability of
other S02 control systems and effectiveness of the S02 control
systems. The EPA position on the effectiveness and reliability
of SO2 control systems is given in Appendices D and E of the
guidelines.
There were comments that dry scrubbing S02 control systems
are not demonstrated on full scale power plant applications.
This agrees with the EPA position on the state of demonstration
of dry scrubbing systems. Consequently, no guideline changes
were made.
Some comments were received that stated a particulate
removal system such as a venturi scrubber is not necessary ahead
of a lime or limestone scrubbing system. Although the cost
estimates provide for such systems the guidelines do not require
particulate precleaning in conjunction with SO2 control.
There were several comments about sludge disposal. Some
commenters pointed out that 70 percent sludge solids content
cannot be achieved in all cases. The document has been revised
to permit estimates of sludge generation at both the 50 percent
arid 70 percent sludge solid content levels. The viability of a
50 foot depth for sludge disposal sites was also questioned.
The EPA agrees that a 50 foot depth may not always be possible.
Guidelines are provided for estimating land area requirements
for a variety of pond depths.
Several commenters noted that the guideline did not take
into account certain site specific cost factors including 1)
facility relocations, 2) stack modifications, 3) sludge han-
dling, and 4) downtime. The Agency recognizes that these and
other such cost factors can have a significant effect on the
cost of installing and operating retrofit control equipment.
However, these costs are extremely site specific for existing
stationary facilities and must be addressed on an individual
basis and may be cause for choosing one BART alternative over
another.
197
-------
In response to .comments that the guidelines did not include
cost estimates for stacks the guidelines have been revised to
include such cost estimates. However, the EPA was unable to
provide any guidelines on .how to determine when a retrofit
system with a new stack would be a less costly alternative than
a retrofit system using the existing stack. This is because
this kind of determination requires detailed site specific
engineering studies. Consequently, no generalizations can be
made.
The guidelines have been revised to advise State agencies
that water supply may be a problem especially in arid Western
areas. Cooling tower blowdown is suggested as a possible water
source.
4.9.5 Criteria for the Identification of Integral Vistas
Several comments were provided which expressed concern over
the "Criteria for the Identification of Integral Vistas." Some
of the commenters- believed that the guideline did not provide
precise, objective and reproducible guidelines for identifying
integral vistas. These commenters went on to point out that the
procedures for identifying the vistas (1) were not clear, (2)
failed to require that a docket or some other type of documenta-
tion be prepared to support any identification of an integral
vista, (3) failed to indicate how certain factors should be
considered or weighted when decisions are made, and (4) used
many undefined or nebulous terms which make it very subjective.
Comments were also received which indicated that while some
of the concepts and ideas in the guideline for identifying
integral vistas had merit, the guideline itself should not be
published as an EPA document. While it was acknowledged that
EPA's regulations should provide the basis and definition for
the integral vista concept, once a definition is adopted it must
be directed to the FLM for implementation. Therefore, the FLM
should take the lead for the development of the criteria and
procedures for identification of integral vistas.
198
-------
The Agency realizes that in some cases the criteria identi-
fied in the guideline for identification of integral vistas does
need some improvement and further explanation and that this can
best be handled by the FLM utilizing their knowledge and experi-
ence in the administration of lands within their jurisdiction.
Thus, the Agency will not formally issue the "Criteria on the
Identification of Integral Vistas." This criteria will be
developed and published by the FLM. In response to comments,
the final regulations require the FLM to give notice and a
reasonable opportunity for comment on the criteria for identi-
fication prior to its adoption by the FLM. The Agency believes
that the FLMs have the necessary knowledge and experience with
regard to the lands within their jurisdiction to develop crite-
ria that will ensure consideration of all factors in a reason-
able and definitive manner.
4.10 NEW SOURCE
EPA's PSD regulations require that a proposed new major
source or major modification evaluate its potential affect on
visibility and, if the State is satisfied an adverse impact on
the visibility value of a Federal Class I area would result,
that the State deny the PSD permit. In response to comments on
the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA in Section 51.307
of its proposal sought to clarify and expand, in a limited
fashion, the requirements a State must meet in reviewing under
the PSD program the affects of a new source on visibility in a
Federal Class I area.
EPA received comments on its proposal that visibility
issues concerning new PSD sources must be handled under the
procedures for PSD, and that if a source's impact on visibility
is considered in review of its PSD permit application that is
subsequently granted, the source cannot later be subjected to
the requirements of Section 169A. EPA agrees with both of these
points as discussed below.
199
-------
As EPA recognized in the statement accompanying its propos-
al, there are several references in the legislative history to
Congress1 concern that visibility issues concerning new PSD
sources must be handled under the procedures for PSD. See 45
Federal Register 34778. The Conference Report states: "Issues
with respect to visibility as an air quality value in applica-
tion to new sources are to be resolved within the procedures for
prevention of significant deterioration." H. Rep. No. 95-564,
95th Cong. Rec. S 13709 (daily ed. August 4, 1977) (Statement of
Senator Muskie). In a statement accompanying technical amend-
ments to the Act, Representative Rogers explained the conferees'
intent in including the above provision:
The conference committee, of course, did not want to
subject new sources to two separate procedural steps
under the PSD and visibility provisions. . . . But in
the one-stop permit process for new and modified major
sources, the substantive criteria and standards of
both the PSD and visibility provisions would have to
be met. 123 Cong. Rec. H 11958 (Nov. 1, 1977).
Thus the provisions proposed and promulgated in § 51.307
for new sources are to be implemented within a State's PSD
procedures. The reason these provisions are contained in
§ 51.307, rather than in § 51.24 with most of the other PSD
procedures, is to avoid interference with the State's ongoing
efforts to adopt approvable PSD regulations in response to EPA's
August 7, 1980, final rules for PSD and so-called "nonattainment
area" programs. 45 Federal Register 52676. Promulgation of the
provisions of § 51.307 as amendments to § 51.24 would, in EPA's
judgment, unnecessarily confuse the issue of what changes the
States must make to their PSD regulations and when. The changes
required by this visibility rulemaking must be made within nine
months of the publication date of the visibility regulations,
while the changes to a State's SIP required by the August 7,
1980, promulgation must be made within nine months of that date.
EPA believes Congress desired that States adopt the PSD program
200
-------
as soon as possible, and that any timing or organization of
regulations under Subpart C of the Act that would hinder State
adoption of the PSD program would be inconsistent with that
intent of Congress. Thus, although, as noted, the provisions
regarding review of the affect of new sources on visibility in
Federal Class I areas promulgated in this visibility rulemaking
are to be codified initially under a different section of title
40, part 51 of the Code of Federal Regulation, these provisions
nonetheless require such review only within the PSD proce-
dures . * 5
Specifically, Section 51.307 establishes certain require-
ments concerning integral vistas discussed elsewhere in this
statement. In addition, this section provides time periods
during which 1) the State must notify the Federal Land Manager
of a permit application from a proposed new major source that
may affect visibility in a Federal Class I area, 2) the Federal
Land Manager may seek to demonstrate to the State that an ad-
verse impact on visibility would result in such area, and 3) the
State must give reasons why it was not satisfied with the
State's demonstration.
The issue regarding reconsideration under § 169A of a
source granted a PSD permit under § 165 was addressed in this
colloquy regarding the Conference Report:
15
One commenter raised the specter of a source being subject to
two visibility reviews—one by EPA and one by the State—that
would result if a State adopted a visibility protection plan
before it took over from EPA the PSD program. Based on its
extensive experience with State plan revisions, EPA believes
the likelihood of such an occurrence is remote to the point of
being virtually nonexistent. As noted above, a State must de-
velop its PSD program many months before it must develop its
visibility protection program. In addition, the States have
had more experience with the PSD program than the visibility
protection program.
201
-------
Mr. McClure. Once a [permit] . . . has been granted
to a new source and the question of visibility has
been considered as a part of the air quality values
under the significant deterioration provisions, could
the source be subjected later to the requirement of
Section [169A]?
Mr. Muskie. It is my understanding that was not the
intent of the conferees.
123 Cong. Rec. S 13709 (daily ed., August 4, 1977).
Therefore, after a source has received a PSD permit and the
question of the source's potential affect on visibility in any
Federal Class I area has been considered, the source may not
later be subjected to requirements under § 169A. EPA notes that
its PSD regulations preceded the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments
did not require analysis of visibility impacts, and therefore
any source granted a PSD permit under those pre-Amendment regu-
lations is subject to the requirements of the long-term
strategy. A State could, of course, impose under authority of
§ 116 any requirements on any source, including a source that
has a PSD permit, in order to assure reasonable progress toward
the national visibility goal. In any event the State plan must
be adequate to assure reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal.
EPA's proposal would require a State to review all new
major sources for their affects on visibility in any area pro-
mulgated under Section 169A(a)(2). In the preamble EPA ex-
plained that this requirement was necessary because there are
sources which are not subject to the PSD regulations'. Because
of the decision in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, F.2d
(No. 78-1006 12/14/79), the PSD regulation did not call for the
review of a new major source locating in a "nonattainment" area,
even if it would impair visibility in a § 169A(a)(2) area. In
the statement accompanying the proposal EPA explained at length
the authority for applying the long-term strategy to new, as
well as existing, sources. See 45 Federal Register 34777-8.
202
-------
Commenters did not focus on the specific issue of whether
EPA could cover new major sources locating in nonattainment
areas, but several did argue that EPA had no authority to re-
quire anything of new sources under § 169A. These commenters
did not, however, present any arguments not discussed by EPA in
its proposal (see 45 Federal Register 34777-8) or discussed
above in connection with PSD review procedures. The short
answer to those who see no authority in § 169A to control new
sources is that they ignore the major part of the national goal
that calls for the prevention of new impairment. It would have
been nonsensical for Congress to create a visibility program
that attacks the problem by controlling older sources while
allowing new sources simultaneously to create the problem anew.
As the House Committee wrote in its discussion of § 169A, "the
very difficulty of curing existing problems after the fact
argues strongly for a strong preventive approach for the future"
H. Rep. No. 95-294, supra, at 206.
Section 51.307 of the final regulations would require (in
addition to the review already required by the PSD regulations)
that any new major source that locates in a nonattainment area
must be reviewed for its affect on visibility impairment. This
review for such sources would, however, only be for the source's
affect on a mandatory Class I Federal area listed under
§ 169A(a)(2). Under 40 CFR 51.24, a PSD source would be re-
viewed for its affect on any Federal Class I area, as
§ 165(d)(2) requires. As a factual matter, review of such
sources locating in a nonattainment area is important and often
critical to making reasonable progress toward the national visi-
bility goal. For example, in many cases the § 169A(a)(2) areas
lie close to nonattainment areas. Without the requirement in
§ 51.307 of the final regulations, a major new source could
locate in the nonattainment area and escape review of its affect
on visibility in the § 169A(a)(2) area, even though that affect
could be significant.
203
-------
The authority for the review required by § 51.307 of the
final regulations stems from § 169A which, as explained above,
calls for reasonable progress toward preventing any future
impairment, and § 161 which authorizes EPA to adopt under "this
part" any "measures as may be necessary ... to prevent signif-
icant deterioration." As noted, "this part" means Part C of the
Act, which includes § 169A, and "prevention of significant
deterioration" clearly contemplates protection of visibility, as
shown by § 160 and 165. Indeed, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia has specifically contem-
plated the use of such authority to protect visibility. In
Alabama Power Company v. Costie, supra at 13 ERC 58, the court,
in concluding that the PSD permit requirements do not, on the
basis of § 165, extend to a source locating in a nonattainment
area, stated:
Section 169A is available to protect visibility in
Class I areas where visibility is an important
characteristic, and the Administrator may choose
to invoke the rulemaking authority granted to him
by section 161 to address this problem.
Since the authority to review the visibility effects of
these new maj ©resources to be located in nonattainment areas
comes in part from § 169A, not § 165(d), any negative effects on
visibility these sources would cause should be understood within
the long-term strategy to make "reasonable progress" toward the
national visibility goal that § 169A requires. "Reasonable
progress" allows the consideration of cost, energy, and other
relevant factors.
4.11 COST VERSUS BENEFIT
Many comments were received regarding the overall economic
impact of the proposed visibility regulations as compared to the
benefits to be derived. Many of the comments indicated that
virtually no benefit analysis had been conducted and that since
visibility was an aesthetic value economics and energy concerns
should be considered.
204
-------
Commenters did not focus on the specific issue of whether
EPA could cover new .major sources locating in nonattainment
areas, but several did argue that EPA had no authority to re-
quire anything of new sources under § 169A. These commenters
did not, however, present any arguments not discussed by EPA in
its proposal (see 45 Federal Register 34777-8) or discussed
above in connection with PSD review procedures. The short
answer to those who see no authority in § 169A to control new
sources is that they ignore the major part of the national goal
that calls for the prevention of new impairment. It would have
been nonsensical for Congress to create a visibility program
that attacks the problem by controlling older sources while
allowing new sources simultaneously to create the problem anew.
As the House Committee wrote in its discussion of § 169A, "the
very difficulty of curing existing problems after the fact
argues strongly for a strong preventive approach for the future"
H. Rep. No. 95-294, supra, at 206. ,
Section 51.307 of the final regulations would require (in
addition to the review already required by the PSD regulations)
that any new major source that locates in a nonattainment area
must be reviewed for its affect on visibility impairment. This
review for such sources would, however, only be for the source's
affect on a mandatory Class I Federal area listed under
§ 169A(a)(2). Under 40 CFR 51.24, a PSD source would be re-
viewed for its affect on any Federal Class I area, as
§ 165(d)(2) requires. As a factual matter, review of such
sources locating in a nonattainment area is important and often
critical to making reasonable progress toward the national visi-
bility goal. For example, in many cases the § 169A(a)(2) areas
lie close to nonattainment areas. Without the requirement in
§ 51.307 of the final regulations, a major new source could
locate in the nonattainment area and escape review of its affect
on visibility in the § 169A(a)(2) area, even though that affect
could be significant.
203
-------
The authority for the review required by § 51.307 of the
final regulations stems from § 169A which, as explained above,
calls for reasonable progress toward preventing any future
impairment, and § 161 which authorizes EPA to adopt under "this
part" any "measures as may be necessary ... to prevent signif-
icant deterioration.!1 AS noted, "this part" means Part C of the-
Act, which includes § 169A, and "prevention of significant
deterioration" clearly contemplates protection of visibility, as
shown by § 160 and 165. Indeed, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia has specifically contem-
plated the use of such authority to protect visibility. In
Alabama Power Company v. Costie, supra at 13 ERC 58, the court,
in concluding that the PSD permit requirements do not, on the
basis of § 165, extend to a source locating in a nonattainment
area, stated:
Section 169A is available to protect visibility in
Class I areas where visibility is an important
characteristic, and the Administrator may choose
to invoke the rulemaking authority granted to him
by section 161 to address this problem.
Since the authority to review the visibility effects of
these new major sources to be located in nonattainment areas
comes in part from § 169A, not § 165(d), any negative effects on
visibility these sources would cause should be understood within
the long-term strategy to make "reasonable progress" toward the
national visibility goal that § 169A requires. "Reasonable
progress" allows the consideration of cost, energy, and other
relevant factors.
4.11 COST VERSUS BENEFIT
Many comments were received regarding the overall economic
impact of the proposed visibility regulations as compared to the
benefits to be derived. Many of the comments indicated that
virtually no benefit analysis had been conducted and that since
visibility was an aesthetic value economics and energy concerns
should be considered.
204
-------
Section 169A(a)(l) sets out the basic objective of the
visibility program:
Congress hereby declares as a national goal the pre-
vention of any future and the remedying of any exist-
ing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.
While visibility is an aesthetic value which is reversible,
Congress added the visibility program to the Act because it was
concerned with impairment of scenic vistas that are enjoyed by
many people and the economic harm that would befall localities
dependent on revenues from these people if they were to stop
visting these areas because of impaired visibility or degraded
vistas. As the House Report explained:
Certain areas of the United States depend upon their
intrinsic beauty and historical and archeological
treasures as a means of promoting their economic
viability.16
Congress was aware of the potential costs associated with
the visibility program it mandated, and included several provi-
sions to minimize the costs of the program, as the House Com-
mittee explained on pages 206-207 of its Report. EPA's final
visibility regulations fully implement these provisions to
minimize cost, and EPA has no discretion simply to ignore Con-
gress ' mandate because of some general speculation regarding a
comparison of the costs versus the benefits of the program.
Moreover, EPA's phased approach further minimizes the potential
cost of the program in recognition of scientific and technical
limitations. EPA is now in the process of developing guidance
on assessing the benefits of good visibility. A "Visibility
Benefits Workbook" will be made available for public review and
comment when it is available.
Several comments were also presented regarding the con-
sideration of cost in making the reasonable attribution demon-
stration for identifying sources which would be subject to BART.
16HR Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Congress, 1st Sess. 203.04 (1977).
205
-------
A few comments indicated that EPA had completely ignored the
cost-benefit analysis for BART. EPA believes that the determi-
nation of whether a source impairs visibility is clearly inde-
pendent of the cost to the source of remedying any impairment it
causes. Once a source is determined to cause the impairment of
visibility, cost and other nonair quality considerations can and
are taken into consideration in determining the level of control
which represents BART, as the BART guidelines provide.
The rest of this section responds to the twenty-two com-
ments on the "Preliminary Assessment of Economic Impact of Visi-
bility Regulations" EPA released with its proposal. This docu-
ment has been revised in response to comments and changes in the
final regulations.
The shortcomings of the analysis attributed to the use of
screening curves were pointed out in 14 of the 22 comments. The
chief concern centered around the use of curves derived from an
unvalidated model. Specific objections were made to the use of
simplifying assumptions to derive the curves, such as:
0 A "representative" 1,000 Mw powerplant,
0 Uniform terrain,
0 Worst case meteorology,
0 Fixed observer-plume-sun geometry,
0 Site-insensitive chemical transport estimates,
0 Negligible impairment impact for certain chemical reac-
tions , and
0 Gaussian plume dispersion modeling (appropriate for
short transport distances) for all distances.
Four respondents objected to the preliminary assessment's
application of screening curves intended for distances of up to
100 km to plants located beyond that distance. One comment
labeled the use of the same screening curves for eastern and
western sites as inappropriate, given the influence of climate
and terrain on the screening results.
206
-------
ERT, which developed the screening curves, objected to the
use of the curves for identifying specific sources. ERT claimed
that the curves were intended to be used only as a means to
estimate generically the numbers and types of industrial sources
having potential visibility impact.
EPA agrees that the screening curves have shortcomings, but
these limitations of the screening curves were and will continue
to be recognized. For example, ERT contends that the curves
were not meant for identifying single sources for mandatory BART
retrofits. They were not so used. The curves were only used to
establish a universe of sources potentially affected by visi-
bility regulations. That universe is identified for EPA as part
of the documentation of the methodology, assumption, and results
of the analysis. At no time does the preliminary assessment
allege that the analysis or the ERT screening curves portray a
precise indication of the true visibility impacts at specific
facilities. As noted in the preliminary assessment, EPA be-
lieves that such a determination can only be made on a site-
specific basis using analytical and modeling tools deemed appro-
priate by the facility in question.
' In essence, the analysis in the preliminary assessment was
never intended to be site specific. The only reason, for includ-
ing the names of individual sources was to provide an opportu-
nity for the findings to be carefully reviewed by the interested
parties.
EPA attempted to minimize the problems associated with
using the curves as the sole screening device by using other
criteria as well. No undue importance was placed on the results
of either screening method. The assessment emphasizes rather
than ignores the need for site-specific analysis prior to estab-
lishing a final list of sources requiring controls for visi-
bility protection.
The one comment concerning the use of "the same screening
curves for eastern and western sites" overlooks the fact that
different curves were used to screen the sources located in
207
-------
different regions. The screening curves used assume different
wind velocity and direction, mixing height, relative humidity,
and visual range constraints for each of nine regions.
Several respondents asserted that the results of the ana-
lysis were rendered useless by the reliance on inappropriate
assumptions; A summary of the comments made on each assumption
is presented along with a response.
Comment; Eight comments cited the National Emissions Data
System (NEDS) as a poor data source, notorious for being inac-
curate, incomplete, and out of date. One commenter blamed
specific incorrect NEDS entries for the preliminary assessment's
overstatement of visibility impacts caused by the Bullock and
Hayden plants.
Other comments voiced concern that screening from the base
of sources included in NEDS underestimated the number of sources
potentially affected. NERA, the American Paper Institute, and
the National Forest Products Association pointed out that
sources whose emissions are not reported in NEDS, because they
commenced operation after the data were initially collected,
were not included in the preliminary assessment. Other sources
whose process emissions are compounded by fugitive emissions
were also missed by the assessment. Since the regulations will
apply to all sources with the potential to emit up to 250 tons
per year, the American Petroleum Institute feels that screening
based on actual emissions underestimates the number of sources
likely to be affected. (UARG feels that the inclusion of only
powerplants in the analysis is evidence that not all potential
sources have been considered.)
Response; The NEDS data base was used because the data con-
tained therein (source inventories by category, estimated annual
emissions, calculated distances to Class I areas) made it a
reasonable choice for a preliminary analysts. Chapter 6 of the
assessment presents a thorough evaluation of the NEDS data and
its shortcomings, and notes the uncertainties in the analysis
208
-------
arising from its use. The conclusion after extensive checking
of individual entries is similar to that expressed in the com-
ments; i.e., that an analysis based on possible overstatements
of emissions will possibly result in an overestimate of the
number of sources likely to be affected by the visibility regu-
lations. This conservative bias was intentional.
Further, for all the final sources selected as potentially
being impacted by visibility regulations (which turned out to
include only utility powerplants), estimates of current emis-
sions from each utility's latest submissions to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC Form 67) was specifically
obtained. This was done explicitly because of concerns regard-
ing the currency and accuracy of the NEDS data. In some cases
this was further augmented by discussions with utility offi-
cials. When utility emissions reported on FERC Form 67 differed
from those calculated using AP-42 formulas on the FERC Form 67
fuel data, the calculated estimates were used. This may explain
why the Colorado-Ute estimates of NO emissions are different at
X
the Hayden powerplant.
Omissions from the NEDS data base resulting in an under-
statement of the possible impacts of any regulation can occur.
However, evaluation of successive NEDS printouts indicated that
additions of new sources of emissions were generally included in
the data base, such that some effort had been made to update the
NEDS. Unfortunately, the NEDS data base is the only source
readily available which provides the type of data necessary to
perform the analysis described in the assessment report. What-
ever the omissions from the NEDS data, the relative impacts and
the conclusions of the preliminary analysis would not likely
change. The analysis performed was to provide an initial indi-
cation of the likely impacts of the visibility regulations. The
analysis was not to provide a complete and accurate assessment
of all sources which eventually could be affected by the visi-
bility regulations.
209
-------
The fact that only utility powerplants were identified
should not necessarily be construed as an indication that all
sources have not been identified. Many of the industrial
sources were exempted from consideration because of specific
provisions in the Clean Air Act. According to the legislative
record, these provisions were explicitly provided to focus the
BART regulations on a few large powerplants, especially those in
the West. Hence, it is not surprising that when the exemptions
were applied to large industrial and utility sources, only
utility powerplants remained identified in the analysis as
potentially being affected by the BART regulations.
Comment: Both sources of equipment cost estimates used in the
analysis were criticized by Salt River Project (SRP). Cost
estimates prepared by Pullman Kellogg have only been issued in a
draft report and hence are subject to change before the final
report is published. SRP feels that only final estimates are
acceptable input for an analysis to support rulemaking. Fur-
thermore, SRP doubts that costs used in an NSPS evaluation
(i.e., for new sources) are appropriate for retrofitting con-
trols to existing equipment. (See additional discussion of cost
estimates below.)
Response; Cost estimates for control equipment were explicitly
stated to be average unit costs for "model plants." While
assessments by other parties (including NERA) have found these
costs to be generally reasonable, the estimates are just average
costs. The specific costs of installation at any given source,
particularly in a retrofit situation, can differ, potentially by
substantial amounts from the estimates provided. The costs,
however, were chosen to be on the whole conservative (high). An
explicit add-on penalty reflecting almost a 50 percent increase
in the capital costs for any scrubbers retrofitted for meeting
visibility regulations was incorporated into the analysis.
Hence, the retrofit scrubber costs for powerplants was not
solely based on the costs for putting scrubbers on a new power-
plant.
210
-------
Chapter 6 of the assessment addresses this issue, and
stresses that cost estimates for NO control equipment in par-
X
ticular are especially uncertain. Given the nature of the
analysis, and the expectation that site-specific analyses would
be the part of any final rulemaking affecting specific sources,
the average costs were deemed appropriate estimates for a pre-
liminary assessment.
Comment; Atlantic City Electric challenged the use of coal
prices from the IGF Coal and Electric Utilities Model for esti-
mating the cost of control via conversion to low-sulfur coal.
Atlantic City Electric claims to be facing substantially higher
prices than estimated for the analysis because the availability
of coal with low sulfur and an ash-fusion temperature low enough
for a cyclone boiler is quite limited.
Response; Estimates of coal prices from the ICF Coal and
Electric Utilities Model (CEUM) are subject to the same sort of
site-specific considerations as mentioned above for control
equipment. The CEUM price estimates do account for variation in
sulfur content, heat content, and volatility among coal re-
serves. Prices for coals to satisfy demand constrained by other
requirements, such as low-sulfur combined with a need for low
ash-fusion temperatures with limited coal reserves could poten-
tially result in higher coal prices than projected by the CEUM.
Such an adjustment would be warranted in a more detailed ana-
lysis of specific compliance options at individual plants.
Comment: One data source not used in the analysis but con-
sidered important by five respondents is the list of sources
compiled by the Federal Land Managers (FLM). Four of the com-
ments indicated that the assessment was incomplete without
consideration of the FLM's evaluations; one objected to the use
of calculations of impairment rather than observations of impact
to support visibility regulations.
Response; With few exceptions the sources responsible for
visibility impairment according to the FLM are included in the
211
-------
NEDS data base and have therefore been screened according to the
assumptions used in this analysis. The sources compiled by the
FLM serve as another approach to identifying sources potentially
impacted by visibility regulations and are based on a different
set of selection criteria than used in the assessment. The two
efforts serve to compliment one another rather than being mutu-
ally exclusive.
Comment; Five comments questioned the preliminary assessment's
interpretation of BART as other than NSPS, finding it in con-
flict with EPA's "Proposed Guidelines for Determining Best
Available Control Technology for Coal-Fired Powerplants and
Other Major Stationary Sources (Draft)."
Response: BART for the purpose of the assessment was defined as
that technology necessary to roll back emissions to meet the
assumed threshold values. The BART guideline document proposes
that BART emission limits selected by the states that are less
stringent than the NSPS limits must be justified. However,
limits less stringent than NSPS are not prohibited. (See Sec-
tion 4.9.4 for further discussion of BART guidelines.)
Comment; Four comments addressed the visibility impairment
thresholds used in the analysis. Pacific Power and Light and
Colorado-Ute Association considered the selection of the thres-
hold levels somewhat arbitrary, noting that the interpretation
of "perceptible impairment" is the subject of considerable
debate. TRC and the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) objec-
ted to the adjustment of the threshold levels without "suf-
ficient" analytical justification.
Response; Aware of the controversy surrounding attempts to
define "perceptible impairment," EPA selected two threshold
values each for discoloration and visual range reduction to test
for sensitivity of the results to different assumed levels of
impairment. In the draft report, it was clearly noted that
defining these threshold limits was critical and subject to many
considerations.
212
-------
Comment: Five comments contained objections to screening based
on distances calculated from the source to the centroid of a
Class I area. All of the objections stemmed from concern that
using this assumption underestimated the number of sources
potentially influencing the Class I areas. Some comments ad-
dressed the possibility that a source might have an effect on a
large Class I area without affecting the centroid; others were
concerned that protection of the Class I area's integral vistas
was not assured by screening for protection of the centroid
only.
Response; EPA shares the concern expressed over the proper use
of the proposed distance criteria and the appropriate selection
of the fixed centroid in each Class I area. These concerns are
discussed in Chapter 6 of the assessment. The inclusion of
alternative screening criteria which did not rely on the dis-
tance criteria was intended to mitigate some of the problems
associated with centroid-to-centroid distance calculations.
Comment: Salt River Project objected to the generalized use of
a 12.5 percent capital charge rate. SRP pointed out that the
rate is very sensitive to utility financing practices as well as
the underlying cost of money, and noted that a 12.5 percent rate
is in the low range for specific western utilities.
Response: Consideration of individual methods of utility fi-
nancing was beyond the scope of a preliminary analysis. The
capital charge rate chosen was therefore not purported to be
representative for any specific utility. Further, the capital
charge rate used in the analysis was chosen to be conservative
(high), and was based on utility financing costs for a private
utility identified by the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI). Note that the capital charge rate of 12.5 percent is in
real terms and is much lower than the corresponding capital
charge rate in nominal terms, which is on the order of 18 to 19
percent. Since all the associated capital costs were in real
1980 dollars the correct charge rate to use for the assessment
213
-------
is a real capital charge rate. For municipal and quasi-govern-
ment utilities (TVA, Bonneville, and SRP), the utility financing
costs would be lower than that used in the assessment. There-
fore, the capital costs on an annualized basis included in the
assessment would be overstating the costs to these public utili-
ties. To be conservative (i.e., a bias toward overestimating
the costs), only the capital charge rate for privately-owned
utilities was used.
The following comments concern issues which the respondents
consider an essential part of an economic assessment of the
proposed regulations, but which were not -addressed.
Comment; Six comments expressed concern that the methodology
understated the potential impact of visibility regulations by
ignoring any additional costs associated with protecting inte-
gral vistas as well as the specific Class I areas.
Response: The criteria outlined for the assessment specified
the use of distances calculated to the Class I area's centroid.
Chapter 6 of the assessment questions the appropriate applica-
tion of the distance criteria when considering important inte-
gral vistas. However, since the issues associated with integral
vistas, (i.e., whether these were to be incorporated into visi-
bility regulations at all and how they were to be defined) were
not resolved when the analysis was done, explicit consideration
of such vistas was not incorporated into the preliminary assess-
ment. Under the final regulations, the State may consider cost,
energy and other relevant factors in determining the appropriate
degree of protection for integral vistas.
Comment: Nine of the 22 comments critized the assessment for
failing to include an estimate of the benefits to be derived
from visibility regulations. Some of the comments challenged
the ability of the proposed regulations to produce benefits
warranting the expenditure of millions of dollars;,, others
claimed that Congressional appropriations already expressed the
214
-------
taxpayers (low) valuation of aesthetic worth. All of the re-
spondents felt that a benefits assessment was necessary to put
the cost assessment into perspective.
Response; EPA agrees with the importance of assessing the
benefits to be produced by any visibility regulations. Page 1-3
of the Introduction and Executive Summary stresses this impor-
tance and points out that visibility impairment causes different
levels of concern for different Class I areas. However, no
overall benefit assessment has been performed due to the case-
by-case nature of the visibility program. As noted earlier in
this section, benefit analyses will be made on a case-by-case
basis as part of the BART demonstration.
Comment; The assessment understated the costs of imposing
visibility regulations, according to three comments, because no
secondary or tertiary economic impacts were analyzed. Among
those potentially affected are fuel suppliers, ratepayers, tax
payers supporting additional administrative staffs, and indus-
tries forced to relocate or reconsider expansion plans.
Response; The preliminary assessment does not consider economic
impacts beyond the estimated capital and annualized costs for
utilities identified for control, and the influence of these
costs on utility electricity rates. The additional economic
impacts associated with control of a particular source should be
addressed in the site-specific analyses that will be conducted
as part of the regulatory requirements.
Comment; Three respondents found the assessment to be deficient
because no economic analysis was prepared to support development
of each state's long-term strategy for protecting visibility in
Class I areas.
Response; The report is explicit in stating that this analysis
was prepared to support the initial regulations, which deal with
near-field impairment that can be traced to a single existing
source or group of sources. Other considerations with respect
215
-------
to visibility impairment, such as control of regional haze and
any long-term strategies potentially to be imposed by state
agencies were beyond the scope of this assessment.
Comment: Three comments cited the omission of any analysis
supporting new source reviews as a shortcoming of the assess-
ment.
Response; The focus of the assessment was an economic analysis
of the costs for major existing stationary sources to comply
with visibility regulations. Analysis to support new source
reviews was not conducted as the cost is associated with the PSD
program. The preamble to the regulations discusses the anti-
cipated affects of the final regulations on new sources.
Comment: Three of the comments questioned the usefulness of
ICF's findings because no other factors contributing to visi-
bility impairment were considered. A fourth respondent came to
a similar conclusion because of the omission of any considera-
tion of regional haze.
Response: The assessment was prepared to support near-field
impairment that can be traced to a single existing source or
group of sources. Hence, the influence of other pollution
sources to the extent that these sources contribute to regional
haze problems were not considered. To the extent that these
other sources affect the overall general background visibility
levels, this effect to a certain degree was included in the ERT
screening curves which account for regional variations in humid-
ity, background visibility, windspeed, stability, and other
meteorological conditions.
Comment: Twelve of the comments submitted included evaluations
of the estimates of the costs of installing controls or initi-
ating other control strategies. Eleven of the evaluations
considered the estimates to be an understatement of the actual
potential costs, due primarily to the use of inappropriate
assumptions (see discussion above). One evaluation labeled the
costs as overestimates.
216
-------
Response: The cost considerations specific to each source
assure that any estimate based on average unit costs in many
instances could be wrong; some plants will be' able to comply at
lower costs and others at higher costs. However, on average
these costs, are likely to be representative of the total costs
incurred.
Comment; Eleven respondents concluded that one or more sources
had been screened incorrectly. Most of the comments concerned
sources which had been named as possible contributors to visi-
bility impairment. The objection was raised that inclusion in
such a list of "offenders" forced the source to prove its inno-
cence. Respondents who felt that their sources had been missed
seemed somewhat concerned about the possibility of incurring
costs at some later date, but primarily made the argument that
missing sources led to an underestimate of the potential costs
being assessed by EPA.
VEPCO pointed out specifically that Mt. Storm had been
included in the analysis incorrectly because of an error in
recording the initial date of operation for one of their
boilers. VEPCO also stated that the distances to the affected
Class I areas from Mt. Storm are wrong.
Response: The report emphasizes that those sources referred to
as potentially affected by visibility regulations are identified
only for the purposes of this analysis. The data sources and
assumptions used determined the outcome of the screening pro-
cess. Although every effort was made to minimize the :bias
created by the input assumptions, the uncertainties and limita-
tions of the analysis were acknowledged in the first pages of
the report.
Concerning the initial date of operation for the third unit
at the Mt. Storm plant, the assessment stands corrected. The
initial date of operation for this unit was that identified by
the. Department of Energy in its Inventory of Powerplant and
Industrial Powerplants. Note that in correcting for this date
217
-------
of operation, the estimated impacts at Mt. Storm would be higher
than indicated in the assessment. This is because the emissions
from the third unit, having been exempted due to its age, were
not included in the assessment. Failing to include this unit in
the cost estimates understates both the estimates of visibility
impairment and the 'costs for complying with the visibility
regulations.
The distance calculations are -taken from NEDS (not calcu-
lated from the accompanying map) and may be either (a) mislead-
ing, due to the use of centroid to centroid distances, or (b)
wrong. Any future analysis regarding Mt. Storm will double-
check the distance to the Class I area.
Comment; The assessment of the possible or probable control
strategies was incorrect in at least three instances:
0 Atlantic City Electric claimed that the use of low-
sulfur coal was at best very expensive and at worst
impossible because of the limited availability of
low-sulfur, low-ash fusion coals.
0 Jacksonville Electric claimed that their current fuel
supplies for the Northside plant contain 1.8 percent
sulfur, not 1.4 percent, which makes the assumed "cost-
less" switch to 1.3 percent sulfur oil a very expensive
strategy.
0 Salt River Project claimed that the retrofit of NOx con-
trol equipment postulated by ICF was either much more
expensive than indicated or impossible when the existing
equipment is incompatible with the equipment used to
develop the cost estimates.
Response: Atlantic City Electric — As mentioned previously,
site-specific considerations such as the requirement for low-ash
fusion, low-sulfur coal is an important consideration and could
result in higher low-sulfur coal prices than used in the assess-
ment. EPA recognizes that there are limited coal reserves of
218
-------
low-sulfur, low-ash fusion temperature coals and that the avail-
ability and likely costs of this coal for specific powerplants
needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Jacksonville Electric — DOE's Cost and Quality of Fuels
for Electric Utility Plants - 1979, which is prepared from
utility submissions, lists the sulfur content of oil delivered
to the Northside plant as 1.42 percent.
Salt River Project — Chapter 6 of the assessment acknow-
ledges that there is uncertainty inherent in the cost estimates
for NO controls used in the analysis and that there is a debate
X
about the applicability of specific NO retrofit equipment for
2\.
specific boilers. Further, assessments of the technical feasi-
bility of different options were not considered to be within the
scope of the assessment.
Comment: Two respondents claimed that the estimates of visi-
bility impairment presented in Chapters One and Two disagree
with those presented in Chapter Three.
Response: The estimates of visibility impairment shown in
Chapter Three are the correct estimates. The derivation of each
estimate is presented in detail in the later sections of Chapter
Three. The differences between the estimates shown in Chapter
Three and those presented in Chapter Two .arise because the more
detailed calculations in Chapter Three take into account (1)
adjustments to represent average daily emission; (2) planned
improvements in pollution control equipment; and (3) intended
changes in fuel purchases.
Comment: Pacific Power and Light questioned the estimated
impacts of the Centralia plant on the Mt. Rainier Class I area.
Their analysis of the assumed meteorological conditions, plume
behavior, and elevation of the Class I area indicated that the
impacts are more likely to be inconsequential.
Response; The estimated impacts of the Centralia plant were
!••'
derived based on the screening curves, and rely on the assump-
tions about meteorology and plume behavior that were used to
219
-------
develop the curves. As mentioned in the preceding discussion of
the screening curves, terrain was not considered in preparing
the curves. The problems associated with inaccurate meteorolog-
ical assumptions and with excluding terrain are highlighted by
examples such as the Centralia/Mt. Rainier case. Adequate
consideration of these site-specific conditions should be in-
cluded in future analysis as part of a specific regulatory
action or determination.
Comment: Colorado-Ute Electric Association took issue with the
visibility impairment attributed to nitrogen oxides (NOx) emis-
sions from the Hayden plant. Colorado-Ute concluded that the
estimates overstated actual emissions of nitrogen oxides from
the Hayden plant two-fold,
Response; The NOX estimates for the Hayden plant which were
challenged by Colorado-Ute were calculated using AP-42 formulas.
EPA acknowledges that the formulas may overstate emissions
somewhat because there is no adjustment included for tangential
firing. Such a consideration should be included in any more
detailed site-specific analysis. Nonetheless, the emissions
estimated from Hayden!s one tangentially-fired unit would only
be about 25 percent lower than the estimate made assuming front-
firing using general NOx emissions data often used for such
powerplants. The perceived overstatement can more reasonably be
attributed to a misinterpretation of the estimates. Maximum
daily emissions rates (that is 100% output for 24 hours) were
calculated, not an average annual or average daily rate. By
using 1979 fuel data, average daily emissions rate is about
one-half the maximum daily rate shown in the report. This is
approximately the current rate suggested by Colorado-Ute.
4 12 IDENTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 169A(a)(2) OF MANDATORY CLASS
I FEDERAL AREAS IN WHICH VISIBILITY IS AN IMPORTANT VALUE
The Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) and a few other
commenters complained that the Administrator's November 30,
220
-------
1979, identification of mandatory Class I Federal areas in which
visibility is an important value under Section 169A(a)(2)17
merely "rubber-stamped" the recommendations of the Secretary of
the Interior. UARG, while recognizing that this action was
"final," requested EPA to acknowledge that "the existing list of
Visibility Areas . . . be reduced as appropriate, when facts so
justifying are brought to the Administrator's attention."
As EPA noted in the preamble to the November 30, 1979,
notice, the Administrator will revise the list on the basis of
new, information. 44 Federal Register 69123, col. 3. Revision
to the final list promulgated November 30, 1979, is explicitly
provided for in Section 169A(a)(2) itself ("From time to time
the Secretary of the Interior may revise such identifications")
and the Act's Conference Report ("The Administrator and the
Secretary of Interior may update the applicable recommendations
and list periodically when appropriate"). H. Rep. No. 95-564,
95th Cong., 1st Sess., 155 (1977). Thus any person who desires
on the basis of new information to have the Administrator revise
the list should administratively petition the Secretary of the
Interior to recommend any such revision to the Administrator.
The several non-UARG commenters on this point seemed to
imply that somehow the November 30, 1979, action could still be
judicially challenged, either as part of a judicial challenge to
the final regulations under § 169A(a)(4) for visibility protec-
tion or otherwise. This is patently wrong. The November 30,
1979, action was final action, clearly identified as such, that
amended 40 CFR Part 81. Under Section 307(b)(l), any petition
for reivew had to be filed within 60 days after November 30,
1979. Indeed, one such petition was timely filed challenging
17
44 Federal Register 69122.
221
-------
one of the identifications and EPA raised no argument that the
complained-of action was not final.18
Although EPA stated in its notice of the proposed list that
it would consider no substantive issue relating to the list ripe
for judicial review until the § 169A(a)(4) regulations are
promulgated "since the effect of the identifications will remain
largely uncertain until then," EPA abandoned this position in
its notice of the final list. In the preamble to the final
list, which throughout referred to the action as "final" and
termed the list a "promulgation," the Administrator explicitly
rejected the request of one commenter that promulgation of the
final list be postponed so that it could be addressed together
with the regulations proposed under Section 169(A)(a)(4) for
protection of visibility. The Administrator explained:
[S]uch an approach [deferring promulgation of the
final list] would be contrary to the congressional
scheme—clearly set out in section 169A—of promul-
gating the list of areas in advance even of the
report to Congress containing the technical outline
for the eventual visibility regulations. 44 Federal
Register 69123, col. 3.
The Administrator noted that the economic effect of the regula-
tions under § 169A(a)(4) cannot be evaluated until those regu-
lations are proposed and promulgated, a time Congress contem-
plated would be after the final list under Section 169A(a)(2)
was promulgated. 44 Federal Register 69123, col. 2.
Thus the list promulgated under Section 169A(a)(2) on
November 30, 1979, was final Agency action, as UARG recognized,
and under Section 307(b)(l) the time for filing a petition for
review of the list has long since expired. Any person may,
18See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. EPA, 5th Cir., No. 80-3081. Peti-
tioners in this case also filed an administrative petition for
reconsideration which EPA denied on October 3, 1980, 45 Fed.
Reg. 65585. This notice, together with the preamble to EPA's
November 30, 1979, final list of areas, answers completely the
substantive and procedural objections raised by the above-
noted commenters in the present rulemaking.
222
-------
however, administratively petition the Secretary of the Interior
to recommend to the Administrator that he revise the list.
4.13 MISCELLANEOUS
Nonferrous Smelter Orders - There were five comments re-
ceived concerning the control of emissions from nonferrous
smelters in the Southwest. At least two of these commenters
suggested inclusion of some requirement to reduce visibility
impairment in a Nonferrous Smelter Order (NSO) [Section 119],
while others said a smelter with an NSO should be exempt from
any visibility requirement. Section 119 of the Act allows
certain smelters that cannot afford the constant controls neces-
sary to attain and maintain the SO2 NAAQS to use supplementary
control systems on an interim basis. The NSO program under
Section 119 simply does not concern requirements for protection
of visibility.
Reversibility of Visibility Impairment - There were a
number of comments which brought up the fact that visibility
impairment is a reversible phenomenon. Certain commenters also
suggested delaying the final promulgation of these regulations
since visibility impairment does not affect health or welfare of
individuals. In fact, visibility is a "welfare" affect and
there is no basis in law for EPA to ignore Congress' mandate to
promulgate these regulations. The Agency agrees that visibility
impairment is a reversible phenomenon; however, Congress was
aware of this fact and nevertheless it established a two-year
deadline for promulgating these regulations. This and the
legislative history indicate the great importance Congress
placed on protecting visibility.
Several commenters raised concerns over the apparent dis-
crepancies between the "in existence" definition in the proposed
regulations for visibility and the "in existence" definition in
the proposed regulations for stack heights.
223
-------
For the purposes of the visibility regulations in existence
"means that the owner or operator has obtained all
necessary preconstruction approvals or permits re-
quired by Federal, State, or local air pollution emis-
sions and air quality laws or regulations and either
has (i) begun, or caused to begin a continuous program
of physical on-site construction of the facility or
(ii) entered into binding agreements or contractual
obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modified
without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to
undertake a program of construction of the facility
to be completed in a reasonable time."
The proposed stack height regulations on the other hand
define "in existence" as meaning "that stack height (of a stack)
which has been constructed," and the commenters felt that "in
existence" under § 169A should connote "complete construction."
The 1977 Amendments employed two concepts to describe the
status of source construction: facilities or source on which
construction had "commenced" and facilities "in existence." The
phrase "in existence" is used in provisions dealing with PSD and
visibility, as well as stack height.
For visibility protection, Section 169A(b)(2)(A) mandates
an SIP requirement that each major stationary source "in exis-
tence" on the date of enactment of the Amendments, but which has
not been in operation for more than fifteen years as of that
date, must apply BART. In contrast to the provisions dealing
with "in existence" Section 169(a)(2), a source which has "com-
menced construction" for PSD means a source that has obtained
all necessary preconstruction permits and either begun physical
on-site construction or entered into binding contractural agree-
ments which cannot be cancelled without substantial loss to the
source.
Since the 1977 amendments defined commence construction to
include the acquisition of permits, the beginning of actual
construction, etc., arguably "in existence" must mean more, and
in fact for the purposes of Section 123 "in existence" has been
taken to mean physically constructed.
224
-------
Congress, however, stated repeatedly that the PSD and
visibility programs should be harmonized to the extent possible.
The effect of EPA's definition of "in existence" is to assure,
as Congress intended, that a major source be subject either to
BART under § 169A as an existing source, or to PSD as a new
source. No commenter challenged this reasoning which EPA set
out with its proposal. Under one commenter's approach, those
sources which had commenced construction prior to August 7,
1977, but which were not physically "in existence" on that date,
would not be subject to either the BART or the PSD requirement.
As noted, the Agency believes that a source either is new (i.e.,
subject to PSD) or existing (subject to BART) and that it cannot
be neither: therefore, sufficient reason exists for defining
"in existence" differently for visibility than for stack
heights. An additional reason for this difference is that in
the stack height definition "in existence" was proposed in order
to credit sources which raised their stacks or constructed tall
stacks prior to December 31, 1970, such that they would not be
subject to more retroactive requirements. However, BART by de-
finition is retroactive.
225
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA .
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA 450/2-80-083a
TITLE AND SUBTITLE -
Summary of Comments and Responses on the May 22, 1980
Proposed Regulations for Visibility Protection for
Federal Class I Areas
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
REC
'lENT'S
REPORT DATE
October 1980
AUTHORCS)
8. PER
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Rd.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3512
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIO1
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
PE.OF R
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6« ABSTRACT
This report summarizes the comments received on the proposed Visibility Regulations
and accompanying guidelines by major issue. It also provides discussion of EPA s
position on these issues and subsequent changes to the final rules.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Response to comments
Visibility
Public Comments
Visibility
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
225
2O. SECURITY CLASS jTMs page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |