[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11927-11933]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04931]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0482; FRL-9975-22-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Oregon Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Oregon on July 18, 2017. Oregon
submitted its Regional Haze Progress Report (``progress report'' or
``report'') and a negative declaration stating that further revision of
the existing regional haze SIP is not needed at this time. Oregon
submitted both the progress report and the negative declaration in the
form of implementation plan revisions as required by federal
regulations. The progress report addresses the federal Regional Haze
Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a
report describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals
(RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the

state's existing plan addressing regional haze.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2017-0482 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency--Region 10,
1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Background

    Oregon submitted its initial regional haze SIP to the EPA on
December 20, 2010, and submitted supplemental information on February
1, 2011. The EPA approved portions of the Oregon regional haze SIP as
meeting certain requirements of the regional haze program, including
the requirements for best available retrofit technology, on July 5,
2011, and the remaining portions of the regional haze SIP on August 22,
2012.\1\ Five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan,
states are required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress
towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area \2\ (Class I
area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which
may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g).
States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On July 18, 2017, the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted as a SIP revision
a report on the progress made in the first implementation period
towards the RPGs for Class I areas. The EPA is proposing to approve
Oregon's progress report on the basis that it satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We also propose to find that Oregon's
progress report demonstrates that the state's long-term strategy and
emission control measures in the existing regional haze SIP are
sufficient to enable Oregon to meet all established RPGs for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 76 FR 38997 and 77 FR 50611.
    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Context for Understanding Oregon's Progress Report

    To facilitate a better understanding of Oregon's progress report as
well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background on
the regional haze program in Oregon.

A. Framework for Measuring Progress

    The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility
conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,''
which is measured in deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The
deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network monitors. Oregon has twelve Class I areas within its borders:
Mt. Hood Wilderness, Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington
Wilderness, Three Sisters Wilderness, Diamond Peak Wilderness, Crater
Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes Wilderness, Gearhart Mountain
Wilderness, Kalmiopsis Wilderness, Strawberry Mountain Wilderness,
Eagle Cap Wilderness, and Hells Canyon Wilderness. Monitoring data
representing visibility conditions in Oregon's 12 Class I areas was
based on the six IMPROVE monitors identified in Table 1. As shown in
the table, the CRLA1 monitoring site represents four Class I areas, the
THSI1 site represents three areas, and the SRAR1 site represents two
areas.

 Table 1--Oregon IMPROVE Monitoring Sites and Represented Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Site code                           Class I area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHO1..................................  Mt. Hood Wilderness.
THSI1..................................  Mt. Jefferson Wilderness.
                                         Mt. Washington Wilderness.
                                         Three Sisters Wilderness.
CRLA1..................................  Crater Lake National Park.
                                         Diamond Peak Wilderness.
                                         Mountain Lakes Wilderness.
                                         Gearhart Mountain Wilderness.
KALM1..................................  Kalmiopsis Wilderness.
STAR1..................................  Strawberry Mountain Wilderness.
                                         Eagle Cap Wilderness.
HECA1..................................  Hells Canyon Wilderness Area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing its initial regional haze SIP as part of the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), Oregon determined, and the EPA in its
approval agreed, that no major contributions were identified that
necessitated developing new interstate strategies, mitigation measures,
or emission reduction obligations with respect to visibility in other
western states.\3\ Therefore, Oregon's progress report does not address
visibility impacts from sources in other states or the visibility
impact of Oregon sources on Class I areas in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 76 FR 12651, 12663-64; 76 FR 38997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the RHR, a state's initial regional haze SIP must establish
two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: one for the 20 percent least
impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs
must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most
impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent
least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the
baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the
uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural
conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions measures needed to
achieve it. Oregon set the RPGs for its twelve Class I areas based on
regional atmospheric air quality modeling conducted by the WRAP using
projected emission reductions in western states from federal and state
control strategies expected to be in place before 2018.

B. Data Sources for Oregon's Progress Report

    Oregon relied on the WRAP technical data and analyses in a report
titled ``Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable
Progress Summary Report'' (WRAP Report), dated June 28, 2013. The WRAP
report

was prepared for the 15 western state members to provide the technical
basis for the first of their individual progress reports. Data are
presented in this report on a regional, state, and Class I area
specific basis that characterize the difference between baseline
conditions (2000-2004) and the first 5-year progress period (2005-
2009). In developing the progress report, Oregon also evaluated
visibility conditions in its twelve Class I areas based on the most
recent 5-year data available at the time Oregon developed the progress
report (2010-2014).

III. The EPA's Evaluation of Oregon's Progress Report

    This section describes the contents of Oregon's progress report and
the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation of
the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR
51.308(i).

A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional
Haze SIP

    In its progress report, Oregon provided a description of the two
key control measures that the state relied on to implement the regional
haze program: best available retrofit technology (BART), including
enforceable emission limits on BART-eligible sources, and its smoke
management program for forestry burning.\4\ Oregon included a
description of these programs which are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The progress report also included a summary of stationary,
mobile, and area source control measures that provide supplemental
emissions reductions as part of the long-term strategy discussion in
Chapter 2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. BART-Level Controls
    Oregon's regional haze SIP identified four BART eligible
facilities: The Portland General Electric (PGE) Boardman electric power
plant, the PGE Beaver electric power plant, the Georgia-Pacific Wauna
Mill, and the International Paper Company mill in Springfield. Of these
four facilities, only PGE Boardman was found to be subject to BART.
Accordingly, PGE Boardman installed low nitrogen oxide (NOX)
burners with a modified over-fire air system in 2011 and is meeting
BART NOX emission limitations. In early 2014, BART sulfur
dioxide (SO2) controls, consisting of a semi-dry flue gas
desulfurization system, were installed at PGE Boardman. This facility
now complies with the initial BART SO2 emission limit. A
further reduction in the SO2 emission limit is required at
PGE Boardman by 2018. Finally, the BART requirements for the PGE
Boardman plant include permanently ceasing burning coal in the main
boiler by December 31, 2020.
    In addition to the BART-level controls on the PGE Boardman power
plant, three BART-eligible sources took federally enforceable emission
limits to avoid being subject to BART. Specifically, the PGE Beaver
electric power plant has six combined cycle turbines that are the BART-
eligible emission units. PGE requested daily fuel oil limits for these
turbines, as well as a requirement that all future oil contain no more
than 0.0015% sulfur. An equation was developed to determine a daily
fuel oil quantity limit that was tied to the sulfur content of the
fuel, so as not to exceed the visibility threshold level of 0.5
deciview.\5\ This plant has a Title V operating permit, which was
modified on January 21, 2009, to incorporate federally enforceable
permit limits (FEPLs), which included the above daily fuel oil limits
and sulfur content in fuel oil burned at the plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under the approved Oregon regional haze SIP, any source with
an impact of greater than 0.5 deciview in any Class I area,
including Class I areas in other states, would be subject to
additional BART analysis and BART emission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia-Pacific proposed a FEPL for its Wauna Mill which provided
for reduced emissions of visibility impairing pollutants in two steps.
The non-condensible gas (NCG) incinerator, which was the largest source
of SO2 emissions at the mill, was eliminated, and
restrictions on the use of fuel oil were established through FEPLs:
     The use of fuel oil in the power boiler was permanently
discontinued.
     Use of fuel oil in the lime kiln was discontinued until
the NCG incinerator was eliminated, after which fuel oil was again
used.
     The maximum pulp production rate was limited to 1,030 tons
per day until completion of this project, after which the maximum pulp
production limit would increase to 1,350 tons per day.
    This plant has a Title V operating permit, number 04-0004, which
was modified on June 18, 2009, to incorporate the FEPL requirements.
This permit was again revised on December 2, 2010, to reflect
elimination of the NCG incinerator.
    The International Paper Company mill in Springfield manufactures
linerboard, primarily from wood chips and recycled old corrugated
containers. This plant has seven different BART-eligible emission
units. In order to minimize the likelihood of exceeding the 0.5
deciview visibility threshold, FEPLs were established including a
restriction on fuel oil could be burned at the facility. The plant's
Title V operating permit was modified on April 7, 2009, to incorporate
the FEPL requirements. Compliance with the condition to limit
visibility impacts is demonstrated through the use of a formula,
emission factors, and continuous emissions monitoring data.
    Oregon's 2010 regional haze SIP identified a fifth facility, the
Amalgamated Sugar Company's sugar beet processing facility located in
Nyssa. This facility has potential impacts greater than 0.5 deciview
for the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area based on CALPUFF modeling of 2003-
2005 emissions. As noted in the progress report, ``The plant is
currently shutdown, and has not identified a date to resume operations.
DEQ's BART rules in<PHONE_NUMBER>(3) specify that this facility must
either modify its permit by adopting an FEPL or be subject to BART,
before resuming operation. At this time, this facility is still
shutdown, and the permit has not been modified.''
2. Smoke Management
    Throughout the first regional haze planning period, Oregon
implemented its Smoke Management Plan (smoke management plan). The
primary purpose of the smoke management plan is to keep smoke from
forestland prescribed burning from being carried into smoke sensitive
receptor areas, generally population centers, and to provide
opportunity for essential forestland burning while minimizing
emissions. Smoke from agricultural and forestry burning are major
contributors to Class I area visibility impairment and regional haze in
Oregon and the western United States. The pollutant species
contribution identified in the Oregon regional haze SIP showed that a
significant portion of the 20% most impaired days in all of Oregon's
Class I areas is from organic and elemental carbon, due to fire
emissions. Much of this contribution is from wildfire, which fluctuates
significantly from year to year. However, there is also a sizable
contribution from controlled burning, which is dominated by
agricultural and forestry burning.
    Under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 477.013, the State Forester and
ODEQ are required to protect air quality through a smoke management
plan, which was included in the SIP. Oregon Department of Forestry
(ODF) smoke management rules are listed in Oregon Administrative Rules
(OAR)<PHONE_NUMBER> to<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On November 2, 2007, ODF adopted revisions to the smoke management

plan to incorporate numerous changes to provide protection of air
quality and visibility in Class I areas. New visibility protection
provisions were adopted in OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> that incorporated
references to the regional haze SIP, including the Enhanced Smoke
Management Program (ESMP) criteria in section 309 of the Regional Haze
Rule. Oregon continues to evaluate the impact of prescribed fire on
Class I areas and make necessary improvements. As a result, Oregon
revised the smoke management plan again in 2014 to incorporate
practices to minimize impacts to the Kalmiopsis Wilderness and Crater
Lake National Park. The 2014 revisions to the smoke management plan
were submitted as a revision to the SIP and will be addressed in a
separate action.

B. Summary of Visibility Conditions

    In addition to the evaluation of control measures, Oregon
documented in the progress report the differences between the
visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000-2004), the first
progress period (2005-2009), and the most current five year averaging
period (2010-2014) based on data that were available at the time Oregon
developed the progress report.

                                Table 2--Oregon Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20% Most and Least Impaired Day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            20% Most impaired days                      20% Least impaired days
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              2005-09                                     2005-09
            Monitor/region                 Oregon class I area     2000-04     First     2010-14               2000-04     First     2010-14
                                                                   Baseline   progress   Current   2018 RPGs   Baseline   progress   Current   2018 RPGs
                                                                               period     period                           period     period
                                                                       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHO1 Northern Cascades...............  Mt. Hood Wilderness Area       14.9       13.7       13.2       13.8        2.2        1.7        1.3        2.0
THES1 Central Cascades................  Mt. Jefferson, Mt.             15.3       16.2       14.9       14.3        3.0        3.0        2.5        2.9
                                         Washington, and Three
                                         Sisters Wilderness
                                         Areas.
CRLA1 Southern Cascades...............  Crater Lake National           13.7       13.8       11.7       13.4        1.7        1.6        1.2        1.5
                                         Park; Diamond Peak,
                                         Mountain Lakes, and
                                         Gearhart Mountain
                                         Wilderness Areas.
KALM1 Coast Range.....................  Kalmiopsis Wilderness          15.5       16.4       14.6       15.1        6.3        6.4        6.1        6.1
                                         Area.
STAR1 Eastern Oregon..................  Strawberry Mountain and        18.6       16.2       12.5       17.5        4.5        3.6        2.8        4.1
                                         Eagle Cap Wilderness
                                         Areas.
HECA1 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho....  Hells Canyon Wilderness        18.6       18.2       16.3       16.6        5.5        4.8        4.1        4.7
                                         Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information in Chapter 3.2 of the progress report,
Oregon demonstrated that all Class I areas experienced improvements in
visibility for the 20% most and least impaired days between the
baseline (2000-2004) and current (2010-2014) visibility periods, as
shown in Tables 16 and 17 of the progress report, and summarized in
Table 2 above. Oregon's progress report included an analysis of
progress and impediments to progress. Oregon noted that there have been
significant improvements in visibility conditions on both the 20% most
and least impaired days, meeting the 2018 RPGs for all Oregon Class I
areas except at the THSI1 monitor, which tracks visibility conditions
for the Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington and Three Sisters wilderness
areas in the Oregon Central Cascades.
    In the Oregon Central Cascades, progress towards the RPGs has been
slower than anticipated, and Oregon attributed this slower progress to
visibility impairment due to smoke from episodic wildfires in the area.
The visibility conditions on the 20% most impaired days in the Central
Cascades had improved by 0.4 deciviews between the baseline and current
progress periods, but had not yet met the 2018 RPG. Tables 17, 18 and
21 and Figure 20 of the report show that, even though there had been a
steady reduction in ammonium sulfate formation since 2000, indicative
of a reduction in anthropogenic contributions to visibility impairment
at this site, particulate organic aerosols has consistently remained
the dominant contributor to light extinction, with notable spikes in
the summers of 2011 and 2012. Oregon attributed this increase in
organic aerosols to wildfire smoke. The 2011 and 2012 fires potentially
impacting the THSI1 monitor included the Mother Lode (2,661 acres),
Shadow Lake (10,000 acres), High Cascades (108,154 acres), and Pole
Creek (26,000 acres) fires, as illustrated in Figure 21 of the report.
    Oregon's progress report concluded that the state is making
adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of actions
identified in the regional haze SIP. The average trends for least
impaired days show improvement at every monitoring location, with all
areas currently meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 20% least impaired days.
Similarly, average trends for most impaired days show improvement at
every monitoring location, with all areas except the Central Cascades,
as described above, meeting the 2018 RPGs. The progress report also
contained a review of Oregon's visibility monitoring strategy,
concluding that the IMPROVE network continues to comply with the
monitoring requirements in the Regional Haze Rule and that no
modifications to Oregon's visibility monitoring strategy are necessary
at this time.

C. Summary of Emissions Reductions

    The Oregon progress report also includes a summary of the emissions
reductions achieved throughout the state through implementation of the
control measures relied upon to achieve reasonable progress.
Specifically, Oregon identified in the progress report emissions
reductions achieved through controls on Oregon BART-eligible sources.
The Oregon progress report included the emissions reductions achieved
at the PGE Boardman Plant, the PGE Beaver Plant, the Georgia Pacific
Wauna Mill, and International Paper Mill. According to the Oregon
progress report, implementation of control measures caused significant
reductions in SO2 emissions at all four facilities, as well
as reductions in NOX and coarse particulate matter
(PM10) emissions at all facilities except the Georgia
Pacific Wauna Mill. The progress report also detailed emissions
reductions achieved as part of the smoke management program. In
particular, the progress report highlights alternatives to burning such
as biomass

removal, chipping, and other techniques to reduce fire hazard,
offsetting up to 13,500 tons of fine particulate emissions estimated in
2015 compared to burning.
    In addition, the progress report summarized changes in emission
inventories for all major visibility impairing pollutants from point,
area, on-road mobile, off-road mobile, oil and gas, fugitive and road
dust, and anthropogenic fire source categories in the state. For these
summaries, emissions during the baseline years are represented using a
2002 inventory, which was developed with support from the WRAP for use
in the original regional haze SIP development. Differences between
inventories are represented as the difference between the 2002
inventory, and a 2008 inventory which leverages recent inventory
development work performed by the WRAP for the West-wide Jump Start Air
Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) and Deterministic & Empirical
Assessment of Smoke's Contribution to Ozone Project
(DEASCO3) modeling projects.
    Oregon's progress report noted that the emissions inventories were
complicated by the changes and enhancements that have occurred between
development of the baseline and current period emissions inventories.
Oregon stated that many of the differences between inventories are more
reflective of changes in inventory methodology, rather that changes in
actual emissions. An example is the reclassification of some off-road
mobile sources (such as some types of marine vessels and locomotives)
into the area source category in 2008, which may have contributed to
increases in area source inventory totals, but decreases in off-road
mobile totals.
    Notwithstanding these differences between the 2002 and 2008
emissions inventory methodologies, estimated emissions reductions for
SO2 and NOX are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. We
note that the other visibility impairing pollutants (primary organic
aerosols, elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse matter) also
generally declined as detailed in Chapter 3.4 of the progress
report.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Fine soil and coarse mass decreased for the windblown dust
inventory comparisons and increased for the combined fugitive/road
dust inventories. Oregon noted that large variability in changes in
windblown dust was observed for the contiguous WRAP states, which
was likely due in large part to enhancements in dust inventory
methodology, rather than changes in actual emissions. For most
parameters, especially primary organic aerosols, volatile organic
compounds, and elemental carbon, natural fire emission inventory
estimates decreased, and anthropogenic fire estimates increased.
Oregon noted that these differences are not necessarily reflective
of changes in monitored data, as the baseline period is represented
by an average of 2000-2004 fire emissions, and the progress period
is represented only by the fires that occurred in 2008, as
referenced in section 3.3.1 of the progress report.

                                  Table 3--Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Sulfur dioxide emissions (tons/year)
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Difference
                                                                   2002            2008        (percent change)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................................          18,493          15,918              -2,575
Area........................................................           9,932           1,528              -8,404
On-Road Mobile..............................................           3,446             654              -2,792
Off-Road Mobile.............................................           6,535             431              -6,104
Area Oil and Gas............................................               0               0                   0
Fugitive and Road Dust......................................               0               0                   0
Anthropogenic Fire..........................................           1,586           1,403                -182
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.....................................          39,992          19,934      -20,058 (-50%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire................................................           7,328           1,207              -6,121
Biogenic....................................................               0               0                   0
Wind Blown Dust.............................................               0               0                   0
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Natural...........................................           7,328           1,207       -6,121 (-84%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.........................................          47,320          21,140      -26,180 (-55%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Table 4--Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Oxides of nitrogen emissions (tons/year)
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Difference
                                                                   2002            2008        (percent change)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................................          26,160          23,548              -2,612
Area........................................................          14,740          24,121               9,381
On-Road Mobile..............................................         111,646          98,399             -13,247
Off-Road Mobile.............................................          53,896          23,463             -30,434
Area Oil and Gas............................................              85               0                 -85

Fugitive and Road Dust......................................               0               0                   0
Anthropogenic Fire..........................................           6,292           9,923               3,630
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.....................................         212,819         179,453      -33,366 (-16%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire................................................          27,397           8,521             -18,876
Biogenic....................................................          16,527           5,560             -10,967
Wind Blown Dust.............................................               0               0                   0
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Natural...........................................          43,924          14,081      -29,843 (-68%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.........................................         256,744         193,534      -63,209 (-25%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its progress report, Oregon concluded that the state is making
adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of actions
identified in the regional haze SIP, as well as actions taken by
adjoining states, the federal government, and compliance with
international treaty, as described in more detail in the ``Long Term
Strategy Update'' chapter of the progress report.

D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), if the state determines, at
the time the five-year progress report is submitted, that the existing
implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this
time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement
and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the Administrator a
negative declaration that further revision of the existing
implementation plan is not needed at this time. Within the progress
report, the State of Oregon provided a negative declaration stating
that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not
needed. The basis for the state's negative declaration is the finding
that visibility on the 20% most and least impaired days has improved,
and 2018 RPGs attained at all Oregon IMPROVE monitors, except for the
20% most impaired days at the Central Cascades monitor, which Oregon
demonstrated was due to smoke from wildfires in 2011 and 2012.
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Oregon adequately addressed
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination that the
existing Oregon regional haze SIP requires no substantive revisions at
this time to achieve the established RPGs for Class I areas.

E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state must provide the
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60
days prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or
plan revision). The state must also include a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. The State of Oregon
invited the FLMs to comment on its draft progress report on February 3,
2016, for a 60-day comment period ending April 4, 2016, prior to
releasing the report for public comment. The FLM comments and Oregon's
responses are presented in Appendix D of the progress report.
    The EPA proposes to find that Oregon has addressed the requirements
in 40 CFR 51.308(i). Oregon provided a 60-day period for the FLMs to
comment on the progress report, which was at least 60 days before
seeking public comments, and provided a summary of these comments and
responses to these comments in the progress report.

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the Oregon Regional Haze Progress
Report submitted to the EPA on July 18, 2017, as meeting the applicable
requirements of the CAA and RHR, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The
EPA proposes to find that the existing regional haze SIP is adequate to
meet the state's visibility goals and requires no substantive revision
at this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We propose to find that
Oregon fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state
coordination with FLMs.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations.\7\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements, and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 26, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-04931 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


SENSITIVITY OF ANNUAL PM2.5 IN CHATTANOOGA TO SO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS RESULTING FROM Georgia’s Multipollutant Rule [391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)]

GA EPD performed an analysis of the sensitivity of PM2.5 concentrations in the Chattanooga nonattainment area to reductions in SO2 emissions due to the installation and operation of scrubbers at six large coal-fired power plants in Georgia.  The analysis was based off of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) modeling, using the emissions inventories for both 2002 and 2009, and CMAQ version 4.5 with the CB-IV chemical mechanism. Full annual sensitivities were conducted, based on 2002 meteorology and 2009 emissions, using a 12-km modeling grid, covering the state of Georgia and parts of the neighboring states (boundary conditions were obtained from simulations using a larger domain).

Cases Modeled

Sensitivities were modeled relative to 2009 emissions, to evaluate the efficiency of various control strategies to be implemented by 2009.  Point-source sensitivities simulate actual expected reductions from the installation of scrubbers (assuming a 95% control efficiency for SO2). Six large coal-fired power plants in Georgia (installation of scrubbers for SO2 removal) were modeled.  Note that Plant Hammond, Plant Bowen Units 1&2, Plant Wansley Unit 1, and Plant Yates Unit 1 were not included in the analysis since they will already have scrubbers installed by 2009. The following is a detailed list of the six facilities that were modeled:

Scrubbers at Bowen: Installation of scrubbers on Plant Bowen units 3-4 (average reduction of 218 tons-per-day of SO2 compared to pre-installation emissions; assuming a 95% control efficiency for SO2).

Scrubbers at Branch: Installation of scrubbers and selective catalytic reduction devices (SCRs) on Plant Branch units 1-4 (average reduction of 183 tons-per-day of SO2 compared to pre-installation emissions; assuming a 95% control efficiency for SO2).

Scrubbers at McDonough: Installation of scrubbers on Plant McDonough units 1-2 (average reduction of 58.8 tons-per-day of SO2 compared to pre-installation emissions; assuming a 95% control efficiency for SO2).

Scrubbers at Scherer: Installation of scrubbers on Plant Scherer units 1-4 (average reduction of 278 tons-per-day of SO2 compared to pre-installation emissions; assuming a 95% control efficiency for SO2).

Scrubbers at Wansley: Installation of scrubbers on Plant Wansley unit 2 (average reduction of 104 tons-per-day of SO2 compared to pre-installation emissions; assuming a 95% control efficiency for SO2).

Scrubbers at Yates: Installation of scrubbers on Plant Yates units 2-7 (average reduction of 137 tons-per-day of SO2 compared to pre-installation emissions; assuming a 95% control efficiency for SO2).

Modeling Results

The results of the sensitivity analysis are reported in terms of the average reduction in annual PM2.5 in the 3x3 matrix centered around the grid-cell containing the monitoring site. Both absolute reductions ((g/m3) and reductions normalized per ton-per-day of precursor controlled (ng/m3/TPD) are reported. Modeled reductions at each site were scaled relative to the observed speciated 5-year PM2.5 design value (weighted for 2000-2004), following the approach recommended in the EPA modeling guidance.

Sensitivity analysis results for the Rossville site (13-295-0002) in Chattanooga are reported in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of sensitivity analysis results for the Rossville site (AIRS ID 13-295-0002)

Sensitivity	TPD reduction	Annual Reduction1 in PM2.5 ((g/m3)	Normalized annual reduction in PM2.5 (ng/m3/TPD)

Scrubbers at Bowen	217.72	0.175	0.805

Scrubbers at Branch	183.27	0.089	0.488

Scrubbers at McDonough	58.84	0.039	0.661

Scrubbers at Scherer	277.62	0.122	0.439

Scrubbers at Wansley	103.88	0.050	0.484

Scrubbers at Yates	137.20	0.076	0.556

1Scaled relative to the observed speciated 5-year PM2.5 concentrations (weighted for 2000-2004)

Clean Data Determination

On May 31, 2011, EPA promulgated its determination (76 FR 31239) that the Chattanooga nonattainment area had attained the 1997 annual average PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  This determination was based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 period which showed a design value of 12.7 µg/m3.

Table 2.  Annual and Three-year Average Ambient PM2.5 Concentrations

Year	Monitor

13-295-0002

((g/m3)	Monitor

47-065-0031

((g/m3)	Monitor

47-065-1011

((g/m3)	Monitor

47-065-4002

((g/m3)

2003	15.9	16.5	14.3	14.9

2004	14.9	15.6	13.3	14.5

2005	16.4	16.1	13.8	15.5

2006	14.4	14.3	13.1	15.0

2007	13.7*	14.9	14.2	15.0

2008	12.5	12.3	11.4	12.7

2009	10.7	10.5	9.5	10.5

2010	8.9	12.0	13.3	11.7

2007-2009	12.3*	12.6	11.7	12.7

2008-2010	10.7	11.6	11.4	11.6

     *Values subject to data substitution (76 FR 15895)

Discussion

The Georgia portion of the Chattanooga PM2.5 nonattainment area redesignation request and maintenance plan accounted for controls from Georgia’s Multipollutant Rule [391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)].  This rule requires flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls on the majority of coal-fired EGUs in Georgia.  The required FGD control implementation date varies by EGU, starting on December 31, 2008.  SO2 controls were actually started on five units in May 2008.  SO2 controls were operating for the entire year of 2009 as follows:

Plant Hammond – controls on 4 of 4 units;

Plant Bowen – controls on 2 of 4 units; and

Plant Wansley – controls on 1 of 2 units.

Table 3 shows the annual SO2 emissions for the coal-fired facilities in North Georgia for the period 2003 through 2010.  The table also includes the electrical generation, SO2 emissions per 106 MWh generation, the average SO2 emissions per 106 MWh generation for 2003-2007, the uncontrolled SO2 in 2009 (assuming average SO2 emissions per 106 MWh generation for 2003-2007 x 2009 generation),  and the controlled SO2 in 2009 (difference between uncontrolled and actual 2009 SO2 emissions).

Table 3.  Annual SO2 Emissions and Generation (106 MWh) from Plant Hammond, Plant Bowen, and Plant Wansley, 2003 - 2010

Facility

2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010

Hammond	SO2 (tpy)	35,900	37,700	39,500	40,600	47,800	12,500	900	2,427

	generation 	4.79	4.11	4.64	4.27	5.09	4.32	3.73	3.23

	SO2/gen	7,494.8	9,172.7	8,512.9	9,508.2	9,391.0	2,893.5	241.3	751.4

	AVG 03-07

	8,815.9

Uncontrolled

	32,883.4

Controlled

	31,983.4

Bowen	SO2 (tpy)	164,900	165,900	186,500	206,400	196,800	148,100	54,800 7,618

	generation 	21.9	21.9	23.3	23.7	24	23.4	22.9	24.7

	SO2/gen	7,529.7	7,575.3	8,004.3	8,708.9	8,200.0	6,329.1	2,393.0	308.4

	AVG 03-07

	8,003.6

Uncontrolled

	183,283.2

Controlled

	128,483.2

Wansley**	SO2 (tpy)	94,000	99,000	101,500	96200	93,900	74,300	7400	2,343

	generation 	13.7	14	15.1	14.8	16.1	15.5	11.8	9.8

	SO2/gen	6,861.3	7,071.4	6,721.9	6,500.0	5,832.3	4,793.5	627.1	239.1

	AVG 03-07

	6,597.4

Uncontrolled

	77,849.1

Controlled

	70,449.1

	Source: EPA Clean Air Markets Division

* SO2 control, required by Georgia Rule (sss), was operational on one or more EGUs for partial or full year

** does not include emissions from facility’s gas-fired units

The “Controlled” value in Table 3 is the amount of SO2 emission reductions that can be attributed to Georgia’s Multipollutant Rule [391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)].  By multiplying the controlled SO2 emissions for each facility by the normalized annual sensitivity in Table 1 will quantify the impact of SO2 emission controls from each facility on annual PM2.5 concentrations.  The location of Plant Hammond, Plant Bowen, and Plant Wansley relative the four Chattanooga PM2.5 monitors is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.  Map of Plant Hammond, Plant Bowen, and Plant Wansley relative the four Chattanooga PM2.5 monitors.

The Rossville monitor (13-295-0002) is the closest monitor to Plant Wansley and Plant Hammond (see Table 4).  Also, the Rossville monitor and Maxwell Road/ East Ridge monitor (47-065-0031) are approximately equal distance from Plant Bowen.  Therefore, it would be a conservative approach to use the normalized sensitivities from the Rossville monitor to represent the impact at all four Chattanooga monitors.

Table 4.  Distance (km) from Plant Hammond, Plant Bowen, and Plant Wansley to Chattanooga monitors.

Monitor	Facility	Distance (km)

47-065-1011 (Soddy-Daisy High School)	Plant Wansley	202.3

47-065-1011 (Soddy-Daisy High School)	Plant Bowen	125.2

47-065-1011 (Soddy-Daisy High School)	Plant Hammond	109.7

47-065-0031 (Maxwell Road/ East Ridge)	Plant Wansley	176.4

47-065-0031 (Maxwell Road/ East Ridge)	Plant Bowen	100.8

47-065-0031 (Maxwell Road/ East Ridge)	Plant Hammond	82.8

47-065-4002 (Siskin Drive/UTC)	Plant Wansley	183.2

47-065-4002 (Siskin Drive/UTC)	Plant Bowen	108.2

47-065-4002 (Siskin Drive/UTC)	Plant Hammond	88.6

13-295-0002 (Rossville)	Plant Wansley	175.4

13-295-0002 (Rossville)	Plant Bowen	100.9

13-295-0002 (Rossville)	Plant Hammond	80.6

Since a sensitivity run was not performed for Plant Hammond, we can estimate the normalized annual sensitivity for this facility by multiplying the normalized sensitivity for Plant Bowen by 1.25 (multiplier is calculated by 1.0/[1.0-(100.9-80.6)/100.9]) to account for the fact that Plant Hammond (80.6 km) is 20% closer to the Rossville monitor than Plant Bowen (100.9 km).  This will result in a normalized annual sensitivity of 0.805 x 1.25 = 1.006 ng/m3/TPD.

Table 5.  Annual PM2.5 impact on Chattanooga monitors from SO2 controls on Plant Hammond, Plant Bowen, and Plant Wansley in 2009

	Controlled Emissions (TPY)	Controlled Emissions (TPD)	Normalized Sensitivity (ng/m3/TPD)	Annual PM2.5 Impact (g/m3)

Plant Bowen	128,483.20	352.01	0.805	0.283

Plant Hammond	31,983.40	87.63	1.006	0.088

Plant Wansley	70,449.10	193.01	0.484	0.093

TOTAL

0.465

Conclusion

H

g

i

w

â

Q

ý

i

w

ý

þ

␃愃̤摧坣àȈ̤̀☊଀F愀̤

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

혈\鐄䃿㨋帑通$갇

kdn

愀Ĥ摧坣à欀d

萏ː葞ː摧坣à欀쥤

摧坣àᄀ would not have resulted in 2007-2009 annual PM2.5 design value over the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Table 6.  Annual and Three-year Average Ambient PM2.5 Concentrations

Year	Monitor

13-295-0002

((g/m3)	Monitor

47-065-0031

((g/m3)	Monitor

47-065-1011

((g/m3)	Monitor

47-065-4002

((g/m3)

2007-2009 Design Value

with Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)	12.3	12.6	11.7	12.7

2007-2009 Design Value

without Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)	12.8	13.1	12.2	13.2


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6608-6610]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2801]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66307; File No. SR-BATS-2011-051]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Implement a Competitive
Liquidity Provider Program

February 2, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On December 16, 2011, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4

thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to implement a Competitive
Liquidity Provider Program. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 29, 2011.\3\ The Commission
received no comment letters on the proposal. This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66034 (December 22,
2011), 76 FR 82011 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    BATS proposes to create a new category of market participants,
known as Competitive Liquidity Providers (``CLPs''), to enhance
liquidity on the Exchange in Exchange-listed securities through
participating in a Competitive Liquidity Provider Program (``CLP
Program'').
    The securities eligible to be included in the CLP Program would
include any security that is listed on the Exchange pursuant to
Exchange Rules 14.8 (relating to Tier I securities), 14.9 (relating to
Tier II securities) or 14.11 (relating to exchange traded funds and
other exchange traded products (collectively, ``ETPs'')), unless and
until such security has had a consolidated average daily volume
(``CADV'') \4\ of equal to or greater than 2 million shares for two
consecutive calendar months during the first two years the security is
subject to the CLP Program, or until the security has been subject to
the CLP Program for two years. In addition, the Exchange proposes to
permit ETPs that are initially listed on the Exchange to remain in the
CLP Program for six months regardless of CADV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CADV will be measured by statistics provided through the
consolidated tape plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify as a CLP, a member must be a registered market maker in
good standing with the Exchange.\5\ The Exchange would also require
each member seeking to qualify as a CLP to have and maintain: (1)
Adequate technology to support electronic trading through the systems
and facilities of the Exchange; (2) one or more unique identifiers that
identify to the Exchange CLP trading activity in assigned CLP
securities; (3) adequate trading infrastructure to support CLP trading
activity, which includes support staff to maintain operational
efficiencies in the CLP program and adequate administrative staff to
manage the member's participation in the CLP program; (4) quoting and
volume performance that demonstrates an ability to meet the CLP quoting
requirement in each assigned security on a daily and monthly basis; (5)
a disciplinary history that is consistent with just and equitable
business practices; and (6) the business unit of the member acting as a
CLP must have in place adequate information barriers between the CLP
unit and the member's customer, research and investment banking
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rules 11.5-11.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To become a CLP, a member must submit a CLP application form with
all supporting documentation to the Exchange. Exchange personnel in the
Exchange's membership department would process such applications.
Exchange personnel would determine whether an applicant is qualified to
become a CLP based on the qualifications described above. After an
applicant submits a CLP application to the Exchange, with supporting
documentation, the Exchange shall notify the applicant member of its
decision. After Exchange approval, the applicant must establish
connectivity with relevant Exchange systems before such applicant would
be permitted to trade as a CLP on the Exchange. In the event an
applicant is disapproved by the Exchange, such applicant may seek
review under Chapter X of the Exchange's rules governing adverse action
and/or reapply for CLP status at least three calendar months following
the month in which the applicant received the disapproval notice from
the Exchange.\6\ A CLP may withdraw from the CLP Program by giving
notice to the Exchange. Such withdrawal shall become effective within
30 days of the CLP's notice, or when the Exchange reassigns that CLP's
securities to another CLP, whichever comes sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Chapter X of the Exchange's rules provides any persons who
are or are about to be aggrieved by an adverse action taken by the
Exchange with a process to apply for an opportunity to be heard and
to have the complained of action reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would measure the performance of a CLP in assigned
securities by calculating Size Event Tests (``SETs'') during Regular
Trading Hours \7\ on every day on which the Exchange is open for
business. The Exchange will measure each CLP's quoted size at the NBB
and NBO \8\ at least once per second during such trading hours to
determine SETs. The CLP with the greatest aggregate size at the NBB and
NBO at each SET would be considered to have a ``winning SET.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Regular Trading Hours'' is defined in Exchange
Rule 1.5(w) as the time between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern
Time.
    \8\ Exchange Rule 1.5(o) defines ``NBB'' as the national best
bid, and ``NBO'' as the national best offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt both daily and monthly quoting
requirements. First, a CLP must have at least 10% of the winning SETs
on any trading day in order meet its daily quoting requirement and to
be eligible for any daily quotation rebate provided by the Exchange
(each such CLP, an ``Eligible CLP''). Eligible CLPs would be ranked
according to the number of winning SETs each trading day, and only the
Eligible CLP ranked number one, and in some cases the Eligible CLP
ranked number two, would receive the daily rebate. In addition to
providing a daily rebate to CLPs that have the highest demonstrated
size at the NBB and NBO during the trading day, the Exchange also plans
to propose incentives by providing special pricing for executions that
occur in any auction operated by the Exchange pursuant to Exchange Rule
11.23. The financial incentives to be proposed by the Exchange would
specify the amount and allocation of rebates provided to CLPs as well
as the parameters for receiving special pricing in Exchange auctions.
    Second, a CLP must be quoting at the NBB or the NBO 10% of the time
the Exchange calculates SETs to meet its monthly quoting requirement.
For purposes of calculating whether a CLP is in compliance with its CLP
quoting requirements, the CLP must post displayed liquidity in round
lots in its assigned securities at the NBB or the NBO. A CLP may post
non-displayed liquidity; however, such liquidity will not be counted as
credit towards the CLP quoting requirements. The CLP would not be
subject to any minimum or maximum quoting size requirement in assigned
securities apart from the requirement that an order be for at least one
round lot. The CLP quoting requirements would be measured by utilizing
the unique identifiers for CLP trading activity. A CLP that fails to
meet its monthly quoting requirements in any of its assigned securities
for three consecutive months may be subject to disqualification from
the CLP Program.
    CLPs may only enter orders electronically directly into Exchange
systems and facilities. All CLP orders must only be for the proprietary
account of the member.
    The Exchange, in its discretion, would assign to the CLP one or
more securities consisting of Exchange-listed securities for CLP
trading purposes. The Exchange would determine the number of Exchange-
listed securities within the group of securities assigned to each CLP.
The Exchange, in its discretion, would assign one or more CLPs to each
security subject to the CLP Program, depending upon the trading
activity of the security. The Exchange would restrict the CLPs assigned
to any newly issued security that is listed on the Exchange pursuant to
Exchange Rule

14.11, which relates to ETPs, to those members that have actively
participated in the development or funding of such product. This
restriction would remain in effect for six months following the initial
offering of the ETP on the Exchange after which time there would be no
limitation on the members that can be assigned as CLPs for such a
product.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of
the Act.\9\ In particular, the proposed change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ because it would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, protect investors and
the public interest.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the CLP Program may benefit investors
because it is reasonably designed to provide greater liquidity for the
securities that participate in the CLP Program. The securities eligible
for the CLP Program are generally newly listed securities that could
particularly benefit from potentially greater liquidity as a result of
enhanced quoting obligations.
    As proposed by the Exchange, each CLP must comply with a monthly
quoting requirement in order to remain a CLP, and must comply with a
daily quoting requirement in order to be eligible for the financial
incentives of the CLP Program. With respect to the monthly quoting
requirement, a CLP must be quoting at the NBB or NBO 10% of the time
that the Exchange is calculating SETs. With respect to the daily
quoting requirement, the CLP with the greatest aggregate size at the
NBB and NBO at each SET would be considered to have the winning SET,
with the CLP with the greatest number of winning SETs (and, in some
instances, the CLP with second-greatest number of winning SETs) each
day receiving the daily rebate. Thus, this proposal would incentivize
both quoting frequency at the NBBO and quoted size at the NBBO,
potentially improving the market quality of the securities that
participate in the CLP Program.
    The Commission also finds that this program is reasonably designed
to encourage listings on the Exchange. This may promote competition
among listing venues, and an issuer seeking to list its securities
could benefit from the potential impact such competition has on listing
fees or quoting obligations across venues.
    The Commission also finds that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. Registration as an Exchange market maker is available
to all Exchange members that satisfy the requirements of Exchange Rule
11.7, and all Exchange market makers are eligible to apply to become
CLPs. The Commission finds further that the proposal to establish
procedures for the registration, withdrawal, and disqualification of
CLPs, and the CLP quoting requirements, are consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Exchange's proposed
rules provide an objective process by which a member could become a CLP
and for appropriate oversight by the Exchange to monitor for continued
compliance with the terms of these provisions. The Commission also
notes that these provisions, including the CLP quoting requirements,
are similar to those of at least one other exchange.\12\ As a result,
the Commission believes that these aspects of the proposal are
consistent with the requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Rule 107B (governing Supplemental Liquidity
Providers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BATS-2011-051) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2801 Filed 2-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 3123-3125]
[DOCID:fr16ja09-147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59233; File No. SR-NYSEALTR-2008-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Alternext US LLC Amending
NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 103B To Conform to Amendments Filed by the
New York Stock Exchange To: (1) Prohibit DMM Units From Communicating
With Issuers After Receipt of Notice From the Exchange of the Issuer's
Impending Listing; and (2) Provide DMM Unit Marketing Materials to the
Issuer Prior to the Scheduled Interview Rather Than the Day Before

January 12, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 31, 2008, NYSE Alternext US LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Alternext'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 103B
(``Security Allocation and Reallocation'') to conform to amendments
filed by the New York Stock Exchange to: (1) Prohibit DMM units from
communicating with issuers after receipt of notice from the Exchange of
the issuer's impending listing; and (2) provide DMM unit marketing
materials to the issuer prior to the scheduled interview rather than
the day before.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 103B
(``Security Allocation and Reallocation'') to conform with amendments
filed by the New York Stock Exchange \4\ to: (1) Prohibit DMM units
from communicating with issuers after receipt of notice from the
Exchange of the issuer's impending listing; and (2) provide DMM unit
marketing materials to the issuer prior to the scheduled interview
rather than the day before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59231 (January 12,
2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-143).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background
    As described more fully in a related rule filing,\5\ NYSE Euronext
acquired The Amex Membership Corporation (``AMC'') pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January 17, 2008 (the ``Merger'').
In connection with the Merger, the Exchange's predecessor, the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), a subsidiary of AMC, became a subsidiary
of NYSE Euronext called NYSE Alternext US LLC, and continues to operate
as a national securities exchange registered under Section 6 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').\6\ The
effective date of the Merger was October 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60 and SR-Amex
2008-62) (approving the Merger).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the Merger, on December 1, 2008, the Exchange
relocated all equities trading conducted on the Exchange legacy trading
systems and facilities located at 86 Trinity Place, New York, New York,
to trading systems and facilities located at 11 Wall Street, New York,
New York (the ``Equities Relocation''). The Exchange's equity trading
systems and facilities at 11 Wall Street (the ``NYSE Alternext Trading
Systems'') are operated by the NYSE on behalf of the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex 2008-63) (approving
the Equities Relocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the Equities Relocation, NYSE Alternext adopted NYSE
Rules 1-1004, subject to such changes as necessary to apply the Rules
to the Exchange, as the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules to govern trading
on the NYSE Alternext Trading Systems.\8\ The NYSE Alternext Equities
Rules, which became operative on December 1, 2008, are substantially
identical to the current NYSE Rules 1-1004 and the Exchange continues
to update the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules as necessary to conform
with rule changes to corresponding NYSE Rules filed by the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex 2008-63) (approving
the Equities Relocation); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58833
(October 22, 2008), 73 FR 64642 (October 30, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-
106) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58839 (October 23,
2008), 73 FR 64645 (October 30, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-03)
(together, approving the Bonds Relocation); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59022 (November 26, 2008), 73 FR 73683 (December 3,
2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-10) (adopting amendments to NYSE Alternext
Equities Rules to track changes to corresponding NYSE Rules);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59027 (November 28, 2008), 73 FR
73681 (December 3, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-11) (adopting amendments
to Rule 62--NYSE Alternext Equities to track changes to
corresponding NYSE Rule 62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Amendments
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section III (A) of NYSE Alternext
Equities Rule 103B to prohibit DMM units from having contact with an
issuer after the Exchange provides notice to DMM units about the
issuer's impending listing on the Exchange.

    Currently NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 103B prohibits communication
between DMM units and issuers following their interview. The Exchange
believes that prohibiting communication between DMM units and issuers
just prior to the interview is appropriate in order to promote fairness
and objectivity in the interview process. The Exchange therefore
proposes to amend NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 103B, Section III to add
a section prohibiting DMM units, or any individuals acting on their
behalf, from having any contact with any listing company once the
Exchange provides written notice to the DMM units that the listing
company is listing on the Exchange.
    In addition to the above modification related to the interview
process, the Exchange further seeks to allow more flexibility in the
delivery of DMM marketing materials to an issuer based on the
availability of the issuer. Currently, the rule provides that DMM
marketing materials are to be provided the day before the interview.
The Exchange proposes to amend the language to allow for the marketing
materials to be provided prior to the interview. Some issuers that
interview at the Exchange may be in transit the day prior to the
interview or participating in road shows and business trips and are
therefore unavailable to receive the materials the day before the
scheduled interview. In those instances the Exchange provides the
issuer with the materials the day of the interview. In instances where
an issuer is available to receive the marketing materials in advance of
the scheduled interview the Exchange would like to be able to provide
the materials to the issuer. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
amend the rule to simply state that the Exchange will provide the
issuer with the DMM units' marketing materials prior to the interview.
    The Exchange proposes these amendments to conform the allocation
process of NYSE Alternext to the allocation process of its affiliated
Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange LLC.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for the proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5),\9\ which requires that an exchange
have rules that are designed to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that
the proposed amendments are consistent with these objectives. The
amendments sought herein seek to alleviate impediments in the
administrative process of assigning securities to DMM units which
ultimately facilitates the fair and orderly trading in the subject
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay in this case. The Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because it will immediately establish the
specific point in time when DMM units must cease communication with
issuers prior to interviews. In addition, this proposed rule change is
substantially similar to an NYSE proposal.\12\ For these reasons, the
Commission designates that the proposed rule change become operative
immediately upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 4.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2008-21 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2008-21. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for

inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2008-21 and should
be submitted on or before February 6, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-930 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


species stage year impinged. est entrained. est notes comments dummy junk  999  999  999 junk junk atlantic. sharpnose. shark age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . atlantic. stingray age01 1978 674 na; App. Table 55 . slender. pike. eel age01 1978 197 na; App. Table 55 . sooty. eel age01 1978 1,123 na; App. Table 55 . stippled. spoon. nose. eel age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . speckled. worm. eel age01 1978 898 na; App. Table 55 . shrimp. eel age01 1978 34,015 na; App. Table 55 . skipjack. herring age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . gulf. menhaden age01 1978 1,940,691 na; App. Table 55 . gizzard. shad age01 1978 4,268 na; App. Table 55 . threadfin. shad age01 1978 58,892 na; App. Table 55 . scaled. sardine age01 1978 2,920 na; App. Table 55 . atlantic. thread. herring age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . striped. anchovy age01 1978 7,581 na; App. Table 55 . bay. anchovy age01 1978 759,972 na; App. Table 55 . inshore. lizardfish age01 1978 2,695 na; App. Table 55 . black. bullhead age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . sea. catfish age01 1978 25,059 na; App. Table 55 . gafftopsail. catfish age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . giulf. toadfish age01 1978 3,145 na; App. Table 55 . atlantic. midshipman age01 1978 62,934 na; App. Table 55 . skilletfish age01 1978 25,831 na; App. Table 55 . southern. hake age01 1978 898 na; App. Table 55 . halfbeak age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . atlantic. needlefish age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . sheepshead. minnow age01 1978 26,715 na; App. Table 55 . gulf. killifish age01 1978 1,797 na; App. Table 55 . longnose. killifish age01 1978 5,615 na; App. Table 55 . rough. silverside age01 1978 8,858 na; App. Table 55 . tidewater. silverside age01 1978 40,880 na; App. Table 55 . chain. pipefish age01 1978 7,862 na; App. Table 55 . green. sunfish age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . warmouth age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . bluegill age01 1978 1,123 na; App. Table 55 . bluefish age01 1978 449 na; App. Table 55 . crevalle. jack age01 1978 1,123 na; App. Table 55 . atlantic. bumper age01 1978 139,991 na; App. Table 55 . bluntnose. jack age01 1978 51,900 na; App. Table 55 . leatherjacket age01 1978 674 na; App. Table 55 . lookdown age01 1978 4,493 na; App. Table 55 . atlantic. moonfish age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . grey. snapper age01 1978 997 na; App. Table 55 . tripletail age01 1978 899 na; App. Table 55 . sheepshead. minnow age01 1978 1,123 na; App. Table 55 . pinfish age01 1978 4,913 na; App. Table 55 . silver. perch age01 1978 18,713 na; App. Table 55 . sand. seatrout age01 1978 137,338 na; App. Table 55 . spotted. seatrout age01 1978 32,976 na; App. Table 55 . silver. seatrout age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . banded. drum age01 1978 674 na; App. Table 55 . spot age01 1978 254,222 na; App. Table 55 . southern. kingfish age01 1978 1,797 na; App. Table 55 . atlantic. croaker age01 1978 2,305,382 na; App. Table 55 . black. drum age01 1978 4,240 na; App. Table 55 . red. drum age01 1978 31,446 na; App. Table 55 . star. drum age01 1978 5,152 na; App. Table 55 . atlantic. spadefish age01 1978 2,667 na; App. Table 55 . striped. mullet age01 1978 60,604 na; App. Table 55 . white. mullet age01 1978 2,920 na; App. Table 55 . atlantic. threadfin age01 1978 1,095 na; App. Table 55 . southern. stargazer age01 1978 674 na; App. Table 55 . striped. blenny age01 1978 4,464 na; App. Table 55 . feather. blenny age01 1978 1,347 na; App. Table 55 . freckled. blenny age01 1978 4,043 na; App. Table 55 . fat. sleeper age01 1978 674 na; App. Table 55 . violet. goby age01 1978 1,572 na; App. Table 55 . sharptail. goby age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . naked. goby age01 1978 421 na; App. Table 55 . atlantic. cutlassfish age01 1978 560,514 na; App. Table 55 . spanish. mackerel age01 1978 2,250 na; App. Table 55 . harvestfish age01 1978 103,955 na; App. Table 55 . gulf. butterfish age01 1978 199,992 na; App. Table 55 . bighead. searobin age01 1978 182,486 na; App. Table 55 . bay. whiff age01 1978 35,841 na; App. Table 55 . fringed. flounder age01 1978 225 na; App. Table 55 . southern. flounder age01 1978 16,986 na; App. Table 55 . lined. sole age01 1978 11,231 na; App. Table 55 . blackcheek. tonguefish age01 1978 126,178 na; App. Table 55 . orange. filefish age01 1978 450 na; App. Table 55 . least. puffer age01 1978 184,915 na; App. Table 55 . striped. burrfish age01 1978 899 na; App. Table 55 . blue. crab age01 1978 1,919,619 na; App. Table 55 . pygmy. blue. crab age01 1978 231,606 na; App. Table 55 . stone. crab age01 1978 61,306 na; App. Table 55 . pink. shrimp age01 1978 2,246 na; App. Table 55 . brown. shrimp age01 1978 2,619,535 na; App. Table 55 . white. shrimp age01 1978 4,910,977 na; App. Table 55 . sea. bob. shrimp age01 1978 6,739 na; App. Table 55 . QC junk A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 A. Gage, 7/ 25/ 2003 Impingement and entrainment losses data for the P. H. Robinson Generating Station, Texas. For use in the Gulf of Mexico case study. A. Gage, 7/ 22/ 2003