52 



a duty to do so. That would protect against known and anticipated 

 adverse effects on natural resources in parks and wilderness areas. 



They could use their authority under section 166 of the act to es- 

 tablish additional — I don't want to say "increments" because few 

 parks can take additional pollution — but they could establish criti- 

 cal loading factors; they could establish emission density ap- 

 proaches; they could establish emission caps. EPA can be doing 

 that right now. 



Now, both of those standards setting or increment setting type 

 approaches will take time, so I have recommended to EPA through 

 my work with its new source review task force, that in the very im- 

 mediate future, that is during the time when they publish regula- 

 tions in January for the new source review program, that they in- 

 clude a very simple mechanism that says: If there are adverse im- 

 pacts occurring in class I areas, the States will revise their imple- 

 mentation plans to take reasonable steps in a reasonable amount 

 of time to make progress toward alleviating those problems. 



They have the authority to do that under existing law now. This 

 would allow for a case-by-case approach until we get to the point 

 where we are able to establish uniform standards that would kick 

 in by themselves. 



As I mentioned, there are a number of ways we can do this. 

 What I think we need is to give EPA a bit of a kick in the pants 

 to be directed to establish some firm deadlines and to get on with 

 the program. 



I see in their testimony that they are exploring and considering 

 a number of things. It is time that they decided they were actually 

 going to do something. 



Thank you. 



[The prepared statement of Ms. Shaver follows:] 



