1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 51 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) Determinations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

Mark Evangelista Summary of Technical Analyses for the Proposed Rule 2 I. BACKGROUND A. CALPUFF CALPUFF was used for much of the modeling described in this document. CALPUFF is a Lagrangian dispersion modeling system that simulates pollutant releases as a continuous series of puffs. CALPUFF simulates the effects of meteorological conditions on multiple pollutant transport, transformation,

and removal. CALPUFF may be used on scales from tens of meters from a source to hundreds of kilometers. In April, 2003, it was promulgated for regulatory use in specific circumstances in The Guideline on Air Quality Models, Appendix W to 40CFR 501, [ the Guideline].

CALPUFF treats explicitly the sulfate and nitrate components of particulate matter for regional haze. Gas phase chemical transformations are treated using parameterized models of SO2 conversion to SO4 and NO conversion to NO2, HNO3,

and SO4. While organic aerosol formation is also treated by CALPUFF, this capability was not utilized in the simulations described here.

The CALMET meteorological model provides three dimensional wind fields to the dispersion model, CALPUFF. CALMET combines an objective analysis procedure using wind observations with parameterized treatments of slope flows, valley flows, terrain kinematic effects, terrain blocking effects, and sea/ lake 1 Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51, The Guideline on Air Quality Models 3 breeze circulations. CALPUFF may optionally use single station ( horizontally constant) wind fields as well. 2 CALPUFF includes algorithms for near field effects such as building downwash, transitional buoyant and momentum plume rise, partial plume penetration, and sub grid scale terrain and coastal effects. It also includes algorithms for longer range effects such as pollutant removal due to wet scavenging and dry deposition, chemical transformation, vertical wind shear, overwater transport, and visibility effects of particulate matter concentrations. 3 However, many of these capabilities were not employed in the simulations described in this document because we were most concerned with chemical transformation.

B. Where to get CALPUFF CALPUFF may be obtained via the Support Center for Regulatory Air Models web site:

http:// www. epa. gov/ scram001/ tt22. htm# calpuff Documentation and model information may also be found on this web site.

C. Use of CALPUFF for calculating the change in visibility The following discussion appears in the proposal:

In providing an individual source exemption option, a metric is needed to assess a source's contribution to visibility degradation. The metric we are using in the regional haze rule is the deciview, which is derived directly 2 Ibid.

3 Ibid. 4 from light extinction, an index commonly used to measure visibility degradation. 4 To determine the change in visibility due to the change in concentration of modeled air pollutants, we followed the example for a CALPUFF simulation in the Federal Land Managers'

Air Quality Related Values Workgroup ( FLAG) Phase I Report ( December 2000). 5 The change in visibility due to impairing pollutants ( SO2, NOx, and directly emitted PM2.5, which we report as the change in deciviews from natural background conditions, is derived from the sum of light extinction values for modeled pollutants from the CALPUFF simulation. Light extinction values may depend upon component concentration,

extinction efficiency, and relative humidity. The complexity with which these factors are considered varies depending upon the type of CALPUFF simulation. Specifics of each procedure we used are discussed in greater detail in the sections describing each CALPUFF simulation and CALPOST processing of the visibility impacts.

The rationale on the use of CALPUFF to assess visibility impacts appears in the proposal:

Traditionally, EPA has used transport and diffusion modeling to predict the effect of directly emitted PM2.5 emissions on PM2.5 ambient concentrations. To simulate the effect of precursor pollutant emissions on PM2.5 concentrations requires air quality modeling that not only addresses transport and diffusion, but also chemical 4 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) Determinations: Proposed Rule 5 Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup ( FLAG)

Phase I Report, December 2000 5 transformations. While we believe that it is technically feasible to model secondary PM formation, and there is at least one model [ CALPUFF] which incorporates algorithms for estimating secondary transformation, we have not yet fully tested such modeling to determine whether its application is justified as a sole determinant of air quality impacts involving secondary transformation. However, where the statutory criteria for determining regulatory applicability involve relatively low thresholds, or where regulatory decisions involve considerations of multiple factors including, but not limited to, model results, we believe transport and diffusion models such as CALPUFF can be appropriate regulatory tools for evaluating air quality impacts involving secondary transformation. Consequently, we believe its use by States to assess whether a source is reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas is reasonable. 6 II. CALPUFF ANALYSIS The Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling ( IWAQM)

studied the potential regulatory application of CALPUFF in its Phase 1 report7 and Phase 2 report. 8 The Phase 2 report,

Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range 6 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) Determinations: Proposed Rule 7 Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling ( IWAQM) Phase I Report:

Interim Recommendation for Modeling Long Range Transport and Impacts on Regional Visibility. EPA 454/ R 93 015, April 1993 8 Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling ( IWAQM) Phase II:

Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts, EPA 454/ R 98 019 December 1998 6 Transport Impacts, has been used to suggest defaults for analyses of long range transport using models such as CALPUFF.

The CALMET and CALPUFF User Guides9 also contain default settings. The template input files (*. inp) that come with the CALPUFF system download have default settings for many parameters; these defaults reflect those suggested in the IWAQM reports and those found in the CALPUFF and CALMET user guides. In the modeling discussions to follow, we mention any instance in which we departed from these default settings.

Additionally, some variables simply point to a file location, file name, or a platform specific parameter; these variables should be obvious and we do not include them in the discussions because their values will be unique to each modeling platform. For any input variable not mentioned in this document, you may assume we carried the default value in the *. inp template file that comes with the CALPUFF system download, or that the variable is unique to the platform.

The information contained in this modeling discussion would include elements of a more detailed modeling protocol for applications greater than 200 km from a Class I area, as discussed in the proposal. However, this document describes only the CALPUFF modeling to support results shown in this proposal and should not be regarded as an outline for a protocol for other CALPUFF applications. As stated in the proposal, for applications involving receptors beyond 200 km,

a protocol should be submitted for approval.

9 A User's Guide for the CALMET Meteorological Model ( 5th edition), and A User's Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model, Earthtech Inc., Concord,

MA, January 2000. 7 A. Domain and Receptor Parameters   Huntington WV This analysis addressed visibility impacts derived from reducing SO2 emissions at BART eligible EGUs. To perform this analysis, we used existing input data and parameters from a CAPLUFF analysis conducted by the National Park Service ( NPS)

for the same domain and time period. Since our analysis was intended to illustrate the possible visibility impacts of a typical source, and not to represent any actual source Class I area scenario, we found the NPS data and parameter settings to be consistent with our assumptions about the analysis.

Due to computational limitations, we conducted individual CALMET and CALPUFF for one month of data at a time. The monthly files were input and output sequentially and automatically by batch processing. Simple scripts assimilated the results into three files of results, one for the base and one for each of two control scenarios.

We used the Lambert Conformal Conic map projection. Using this projection allowed us to take advantage of existing NPS geophysical data files for CALMET processing.

The modeling domain for this analysis was roughly a 300 km square containing Huntington, WV, portions of Shenandoah National Park, and the Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness Areas in the Monongahela National Forest ( Figure 1). By using this domain, we could again take advantage of the existing geophysical and meteorological data.

A total of 114 receptors were located in arcs at select radial distances ( 100, 120, 140, 160, 180, and 200 km) from the source location. While area specific geophysical data was incorporated into the CALMET processing, providing CALPUFF meteorology input that was geographically representative of 8 the domain, area specific elevations were not assigned to the receptors in the concentric circles. An elevation of 600 meters was assigned to these receptors as an average value for the area.

B. CALMET Parameters We used CALMET to process meteorology data for 1991 1995.

Data from ten surface stations was included; nine of these stations were also included as precipitation stations in the CALMET input file. We included data from three upper air rawinsonde stations. ( The meteorological stations and other CALMET parameters are identified in Table 1.) We incorporated the geophysical data   land type, elevation, land use, and surface parameters   from the existing data provided by NPS.

Table 1 summarizes the ( non default) parameter settings we used for the CALMET simulations.

We created 60 CALMET output files, one for each month for five years.

C. CALPUFF Parameters We set up the CALPUFF input file to use the same domain parameters and meteorology years as we used in the CALMET processing. The CALMET output files were directly input into the CALPUFF simulations, again for one month at a time.

We selected options to model concentrations of SO2, SO4, NOx,

HNO3, NO3, and PM2.5 while providing input emissions for only SO2, NOx, and PM2.5. The CALPUFF simulations contain only one emissions source, a single point source. We applied source characteristics typical of BART eligible EGUs ( base elevation = 200 m, stack height = 100m, stack diameter = 8.0 m, exit velocity = 27.0 m/ s, exit temperature = 400 deg K) to all simulations in the analysis. 9 Two base simulations were conducted to estimate the emissions of typical Electricity Generating Units ( EGUs) of 250 MW and 750 MW. We calculated SO2 emissions for these EGUs using the following assumptions: 1 MW = 10.5 x 106 Btu/ hr;

bituminous coal heat content 13,000 Btu/ lb; 38 lb sulfur per ton of coal. 10 We estimated the following emission rates:

EGU Size( MW) EGU Size Btu/ hr SO2 TPY Lb/ MMBtu SO2 250 2.625 * 109 29,185 2.54 750 7.875 * 109 87,556 2.54 We estimated the NOx and PM2.5 emissions based upon SO2 emissions. By examining the ratio of SO2 emissions to NOx emissions for a set of BART eligible EGUs in the East, 11 we determined a SO2/ NOx ratio of 1/ 2.8 to be a good fit for the set. Figure 2 shows the frequency of the ratios in the set.

For the base simulations only, we estimated the NOx emission rate to be 1/ 2.8 ( approx. 36%) of the SO2 emission rate. A similar examination of the ratio of SO2 emissions to direct emissions of PM2.5 yielded a good fit at a 1/ 200 ratio. We therefore estimated the PM2.5 emission rate to be 1/ 200 ( approx. 0.5%) the SO2 rate.

10 Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors: AP 42, Fifth Edition,

Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources EPA, 1995 11 " Summary of BART Source Analyses," Memorandum from Bill Balcke and Doran Stegura, Perrin Quarles Associates, Inc., to Chad Whiteman, EPA March 24, 2003. See 2001 emissions data in BART AR file, copy included in the docket 10 We simulated two emission control scenarios   90% SO2 reduction and 95% SO2 reduction. In both these scenarios we also applied the NOX emission rate of .2 lb/ 1MM BTU that is proposed for power plants subject to BART12. Direct emission rates for PM2.5 remained the same for the base and control simulations. Table 2 shows the emission rates we used for the base and control simulations.

We carried some of the same CALPUFF parameters that were used in the NPS analysis mentioned in Section II A: monthly average values for background concentrations of ozone ( 50 ppb), ammonia ( 0.10 ppb), and hydrogen peroxide ( 1.0 ppb).

These monthly average values remained constant from month to month.

The other parameters we set for the CALPUFF simulation are summarized in Table 3.

D. CALPOST Parameters We ran CALPOST to average and report the extinction coefficients for visibility related impacts from the concentrations output by CALPUFF. CALPOST also reported visibility impacts in units of deciviews; it is the change in deciviews among the emission rate scenarios we modeled that we sought in this analysis.

The CALPOST settings for this analysis mainly describe the format of the output report. An exception was the computation of light extinction and associated deciviews; this computation was performed by CALPOST. Once again, we carried some of the same CALPUFF parameters that were used in the NPS analysis 12 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) Determinations: Proposed Rule 11 mentioned in Section II A. We set background light extinction values for sulfate by providing a monthly value for background sulfate concentration; this value was not considered in the CALPUFF computation of total sulfate concentration. The monthly sulfate concentration values were taken with the hourly RH values from CALMET/ CALPUFF to compute the background light extinction due to sulfate. We also set a background value for light extinction based upon soil. Background concentrations for other pollutants ( nitrate, organic carbon,

elemental carbon, and coarse particles) were set to zero, and their corresponding contribution to the background light extinction was zero as well. The CALPOST parameter settings are listed in Table 4.

E. Results The CALPOST output reports were generated for each emission scenario ( 3), for each year ( 5), and for each source receptor distance ( 6), for a total of 90 separate reports. One sample report for the 200 km distance in the base simulation of the 250 MW EGU appears in Table 5.

In Table 5, the receptor that reported the maximum deciview change due to pollutants for each day is listed. For example,

on day 304 receptor number 112 reported a total deciview value of 16.706. Of that total, 10.486 deciviews were due to background effects. The remainder, 6.220 deciviews, was due to the pollutant concentrations output by CALPUFF; the change in deciviews due to the contribution of pollutant concentrations on light extinction is commonly referred to in units of " delta deciviews" ( DDV). Receptor 112 had the highest DDV due to pollutants ( 6.220) of any receptor 200 km from the source on that day. Of that 6.220 DDV, 69.0% was due to the contribution 12 from sulfates, 30.9% from nitrates, and 0.1% from emitted fine particulates.

Maximum values for DDV were determined for each distance in each year, by EGU size ( Table 6. Note, from the example above,

the maximum DDV for a 250 MW EGU at 200 km in 1992 is 6.220.)

From this table, the maximum DDV for each distance in any of the five modeled years was identified, along with the receptor number and day ( Table 7).

Once the locations and dates of the maximum DDV over the 5

year period were known, we then examined those values at the same locations and dates for the emission control scenarios.

The results are shown in Table 8. For the 250 MW EGU,

visibility impact at receptor 10 drops 9.029 DDV with 90% SO2 reduction in emissions, and drops 9.649 DDV for 95% reduction.

For the 750 MW EGU example, visibility impact at receptor 10 drops 12.318 DDV at 90% SO2 reduction, drops 13.583 DDV with 95% reduction.

These results do not specifically represent any BARTeligible source or any particular Class I area and its corresponding sources. Rather, the results, and the entire analysis illustrate what may be conducted for a BART analysis,

and indicate the type of results the analysis might yield.

III. CALPUFF SCREENING ANALYSES We also conducted analyses for the proposed alternative of using CALPUFF in a screening mode. Screening analyses are generally used to obtain conservative, yet realistic estimates of impacts. 13 The differences in setup and execution between the CALPUFF analysis described in Section II and the CALPUFF 13 Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51, The Guideline on Air Quality Models 13 screening analyses described in this section are summarized in Table 9, with further explanations below. A CALPUFF screening analysis is easier to set up and execute than the CALPUFF analysis described in Section II, it does not require CALMET processing, and the receptor alignment is easier to set up.

These differences also result in a faster execution of the screening analysis.

A. Meteorology As before, we used five years of meteorology data. However,

we did not process the data through CALMET. In the screening mode, CALPUFF incorporates a basic wind field from only one meteorology station. In the same manner as in plume models,

the winds are assumed to be horizontally homogeneous throughout the modeling domain for each hour. Only minor processing of the meteorology data for Huntington surface station was necessary, unlike using the ten surface stations and three upper air stations in the previous simulations. The ease of processing meteorology allowed us to simulate three other areas, Oklahoma City, Athens, GA, and Phoenix.

Further simplification came about by assuming flat terrain conditions throughout the modeling domain, and therefore not processing the geophysical data. The assumption of flat terrain is consistent with the use of only a single wind for each hour over the entire modeling domain.

A meteorology input file was still generated, although not by CALMET. In setting CALPUFF parameters, the new meteorology file was identified and the following parameters are set:

CALPUFF Variable Value Explanation 14 Input Group Name ( setting)

1 METFM 2 Use an ISC ASCII file,

which is a file of singlestation meteorology data prepared by processors for input into plume models,

much like the data processed by MPRM for input in to ISC.

B. Source/ Receptor Relationship As we described in the analysis in Section II, we created numerous individual reports running CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST. Even though the screening analysis is more generalized, there are still several files to deal with. One reason is the simplified relationship between the source and the receptors. As in our previous analysis, we created a matrix of receptors that surrounded the source in concentric circles. This orientation best served our purposes of analyzing discrete distances from the source rather than actual locations of Class I areas. This orientation was also used in the screening analysis, and each circle was processed separately by CALPOST.

Our desired result of the screening analysis was a maximum DDV for each distance from a receptor temporally and spatially independent of any other value. In other words, we wanted to know the maximum DDV at a distance from the source for all directions and times in the simulation. We would have one 15 maximum DDV at 20 km, at 40, km, and so on for each meteorology station for each emission scenario.

The application of this result might be considered worst case, and if such a worst case result still did not cross some threshold, then perhaps no further modeling would be necessary in a BART analysis. That application, though, would be built on the assumption that the screening analysis produced results more conservative than the more involved CALPUFF simulation,

which may not always be the case. 14 However, our intent was to generate an array of reasonably worst case values with the hope that any loss of conservatism would be small enough to be absorbed in the calculations and assumptions.

C. Emission Scenarios We applied the same assumptions and settings concerning background concentrations, species emitted and modeled, and emissions as we did in the analysis described in Section II C.

We also held the same ratios of NOx and PM2.5 emissions to SO2 emissions. As before for uncontrolled modeling scenarios, when we varied the SO2 emissions, the emissions of NOx and PM2.5 also varied proportionally. We chose 500, 100, 200, 10000,

15000, and 20000 tons per year for SO2 emissions.

D. Computing Extinction and Deciviews A departure from the previous CALPUFF analysis involved setting the parameters for use of relative humidity in computing the light extinction and the associated deciviews.

Since we did not process meteorology through CALMET, we did not have hourly RH values to use in the computation. By 14 Analysis of the CALMET/ CALPUFF Modeling System in a Screening Mode,

EPA 454/ R 98 010, November, 1998 16 setting a parameter in CALPOST, we use monthly values for the F( RH) factor used in computing extinction. These values came from the FLAG report15, and a choice to use the FLAG values is available in the CALPOST template input file.

CALPOST Input Group Variable Name Value ( setting) Explanation 2 MVISBK 6 Use the monthly factors from the FLAG report.

2 RHFAC 2.98,2.79,2.81,2.56 3.12,3.39,3.54,3.87 3.85,3.27,2.97,3.10 Set the FLAG values for F( RH)

E. Results The results of this modeling were also used to produce the look up tables, another proposed alternative for assessing visibility impacts. We discuss those results in the following section.

15 Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup ( FLAG)

Phase I Report, December 2000 17 III. LOOK UP TABLE This option would allow a State or source to look up the maximum allowable annual emission rate of visibility impairing pollutants ( SO2, NOx, and direct PM2.5) at a given distance that would yield a CALPUFF modeled net visibility impact at a particular threshold value ( in this example 0.5 DDV). To create this look up table, we conducted several screening analyses with varying SO2 emission rates and, by the ratios,

varying NOx and PM2.5 emission rates as well. We applied the results of these screening analyses to build linear regression equations, which we used to generate a table.

Step 1 was to generate tables of the maximum DDV for each distance for each SO2 emission scenario, and for each of the four meteorology stations. We grouped and sorted the data so that for each downwind distance the DDV were ranked from highest to lowest for each level of SO2 emissions. This data appears in Tables 10 13.

We combined data for Huntington and Athens into an " East"

category, and Oklahoma City and Phoenix into a " West"

category, providing ten DDV values for each SO2 emission rate,

for each downwind distance for the East and for the West. From those ten values, we extracted the maximum values and generated linear regression equations to compute DDV from SO2 emission rate. From there, we set the DDV to 0.5 ( the threshold value in the proposal), and calculated what SO2 emissions rate would be required at each distance to result in 0.5 DDV. Those emission rate/ distance combinations were used to again generate another linear regression equation to compute the SO2 emission rate as a function of distance. The look up table prototype was generated from that equation.

Table 14 is an example of the look up table. 18 Of course, this is again an illustrative example. If a table were to be generated for States and sources to use, more screening analyses would have to be done to provide more data points. Non linear relationships would be examined to better characterize the data. Several threshold values could be used to create tables for bracketing. It is unclear whether one table would be applicable for a region or a State, as we found significant differences in the values for tables in the East and West.

The advantages of the look up tables are that they are easy to use and no modeling would be required. However, they may be too general to represent all source categories. For instance, the source category in the example in Table 14 is EGUs. Another source category may have different source and emissions characteristics which may require development of a separate look up table. Also, the meteorological stations used may not be appropriate for all geographic areas in the East and West, and the ratios used for emission estimates would likely be different for each source category. Several sets of look up tables requiring several sets of assumptions may be cumbersome and complex in development and still may not be meaningful for the desired purpose.

IV. SUMMARY In support of this proposal, we illustrated three possible methods to assess the visibility impacts for the BART analysis: 1) A comprehensive CALPUFF simulation performed for a domain in the East for five years of meteorology data;

2) Several screening analyses using CALPUFF were also performed for the same time period; and 3) A look up table was created based upon the results of the screening analyses. Procedures 19 for applying each method, as well as output from the three methods were discussed. 20 Figure 1 The Huntington, WV CALPUFF Modeling Domain 21 Figure 2 Number of BART Eligible EGUs by SO2/ Nox Ratio Eastern Region 0 10 20 30 40 50 < 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 1  2 2  3 3  4 4  5 5  6 > 6 SO2/ NOx Ratio Number of EGUs 22 TABLE 1 CALMET Parameter Variables and Settings Input Group Variable Name Value ( setting) Explanation 0 LCLFILES F Sets the file names to all UPPERCASE 0 NUSTA 3 Number of upper air stations 0 NOWSTA 0 Number of overwater stations 2 PMAP LCC Set Lambert Conformal map projection 2 RLAT0 37N Set reference latitude 2 RLON0 83W Set projection central meridian 2 XLAT1 30N projection cone slice point 2 XLAT2 60N projection cone slice point 2 NX 101 number of grid cells in X direction 2 NY 93 number of grid cells in Y direction 2 DGRIDKM 3 grid spacing in km 2 XORIGKM 160 [ southwest corner of grid xcoordinate 2 YORIGKM 60 [ southwest corner of grid ycoordinate 2 NZ 10 number of vertical layers 2 ZFACE 0,20,50,75,100,250,500, 750,1000,2000,3000 heights of vertical layers 4 NSSTA 10 number of surface stations 4 NPSTA 9 number of precipitation stations 4 IFORMC 1 sets output format to be CALPUFF input 5 BIAS  1, 9* 1 gives 100% weight to surface obs for layer 1 winds, and 100% weight to upper air obs for other layers 5 LVARY T use varying radius of influence to find valid data 5 RMAX1 30 max radius of influence at the sfc 5 RMAX2 30 [ max radius of influence aloft 5 RMAX3 50 max radius of influence over water 5 TERRAD 10 radius of influence of terrain 5 R1 1 [ sfc obs and first guess data equally weighted if they're within 1 km of each other 5 R2 1 same as R1, only for data aloft 5 NITER 50 use the max number of iterations( 50) in minimizing divergence 5 NSMTH 2,8,8,12,12,12,0,0,0,0 number of passes in the smoothing procedure for each vertical layer 23 TABLE 1 ( cont.) CALMET Parameter Variables and Settings Input Group Variable Name Value ( setting) Explanation 5 NINTR2 5,5,5,5,5,5,5,0,0,0 max number of stations to use to interpolate data to a grid point, for each vertcal layer 5 ISURFT 2 Use surface station # 2 ( BECK) to get sfc temp for diagnostic wind module 5 IUPT 1 Use upper air station # 1 ( STIR) to calculate lapse rate for the domain. 6 MNMDAV 10 Search no more than 10 grid cells in X, Y direction for spatial averaging of mixing heights. 6 ZIMAX 2500 Set max mixing height over land. 6 ZIMAXW 2500 Set max mixing height over water. 6 TRADKM 20 Set radius of influence in km for temperature interpolation. 6 JWAT1 55 Disable temperature interpolation over water. 6 JWAT2 55 Disable temperature interpolation over water. 6 SIGMAP 50 Set radius of influence for precipitation interpolation. 7 SS1 HUNT Identify surface met station. 7 SS2 BECK Identify surface met station. 7 SS3 ELKI Identify surface met station. 7 SS4 RICH Identify surface met station. 7 SS5 ROAN Identify surface met station. 7 SS6 CHAR Identify surface met station. 7 SS7 HARR Identify surface met station. 7 SS8 BALT Identify surface met station. 7 SS9 PITT Identify surface met station. 7 SS10 MTST Identify surface met station. 8 US1 STIR Identify upper air station. 8 US2 PITT Identify upper air station. 8 US3 HUNT Identify upper air station. 9 PS1 HUNT Identify precipitation station 9 PS2 BECK Identify precipitation station 9 PS3 ELKI Identify precipitation station 9 PS4 RICH Identify precipitation station 9 PS5 ROAN Identify precipitation station 9 PS6 CHAR Identify precipitation station 9 PS7 HARR Identify precipitation station 9 PS8 BALT Identify precipitation station 9 PS9 PITT Identify precipitation station 24 Table 2 Emission rates for the Huntington simulations Sim MW EGU SO2 tpy NOx tpy PM2.5 tpy Base 250 29185 10423 146 90% reduction 250 2919 2300 146 95% red. 250 1459 2300 146 Base 750 87556 31271 438 90% red. 750 8756 6899 438 95% red. 750 4378 6899 438 25 TABLE 3 CALPUFF Parameter Variables and Settings Input Group Variable Name Value ( setting) Explanation 0 NMETDAT 12 Incorporate 12 CALMET files ( 1 per month). 1 NSPEC 6 Set the number of chemical species to model. 1 NSE 3 Set number of chemical species emitted. 2 MSPLIT 1 Allow puff splitting. 3a CSPEC SO2 Identify chemical species to be modeled. 3a CSPEC SO4 Identify chemical species to be modeled. 3a CSPEC NOX Identify chemical species to be modeled. 3a CSPEC HNO3 Identify chemical species to be modeled. 3a CSPEC NO3 Identify chemical species to be modeled. 3a CSPEC PM25 Identify chemical species to be modeled. 3a SO2 1,1,1,0 Set as modeled, emitted, gas deposited. 3a SO4 1,0,2,0 Set as modeled, not emitted, particle deposited. 3a NOX 1,1,1,0 Set as modeled, emitted, gas deposited. 3a HNO3 1,0,1,0 Set as modeled, not emitted, gas deposited. 3a NO3 1,0,2,0 Set as modeled, not emitted, particle deposited 3a PM25 1,1,2,0 Set as modeled, emitted, particle deposited. 4 RLAT0 37N Setting consistent with CALMET. 4 RLON0 83W Setting consistent with CALMET. 4 XLAT1 30N Setting consistent with CALMET. 4 XLAT2 60N Setting consistent with CALMET. 4 NX 101 Setting consistent with CALMET. 4 NY 93 Setting consistent with CALMET. 4 NZ 10 Setting consistent with CALMET. 4 DGRIDKM 3 Setting consistent with CALMET. 4 ZFACE 0,20,50,75,100,250,500, 750,1000,2000,3000 Setting consistent with CALMET.

4 XORIGKM 160 Setting consistent with CALMET. 4 YORIGKM 60 Setting consistent with CALMET. 26 TABLE 3 ( cont.) CALPUFF Parameter Variables and Settings Input Group Variable Name Value ( setting) Explanation 4 IBCOMP 5 Set computational grid to 5 grid cells inside CALMET grid in X dir. 4 JBCOMP 5 Set computational grid to 5 grid cells inside CALMET grid in Y dir. 4 IECOMP 96 Set number of computational grid cells in X dir. 4 JECOMP 88 Set number of computational grid cells in Y dir. 4 LSAMP F Set no gridded receptors; all receptors are discrete. 5 IPRTU 3 Set units to print as ug/ m** 3 6 NHILL 0 Set no CTDM processing. 6 MHILL 2 Set no CTDM processing. 6 XCTDMKM 0 Set no CTDM processing. 6 YCTDMKM 0 Set no CTDM processing. 7 HNO3 0.1628,1,18,0, 0.00000008 Set chemical parameters for HNO3, which had no default values stated. 8 SO4 0.48,2 Set dry deposition parameters. 8 NO3 0.48,2 Set dry deposition parameters. 8 PM25 0.48,2 Set dry deposition parameters. 10 SO4 1.0E 04, 3.0E 05 Set wet deposition parameters. 10 HNO3 6.0E 05, 0.0E00 Set wet deposition parameters. 10 NO3 1.0E 04, 3.0E 05 Set wet deposition parameters. 11 MOZ 0 Use monthly background ozone. 11 BCKO3 12* 50 Set monthly background ozone for each month to 50 ppb. 11 BCKNH3 12* 0.10 Set monthly background ammonia concentration for each month to 0.1 ppb 11 MH2O2 0 Use monthly background hydrogen peroxide. 11 BCKH2O2 120* 01.00 Set monthly background hydrogen peroxide concentration for each month to 1.0 ppb 13a NPT1 1 Set number of point sources to 1. 13a IPTU 4 Set units to tons/ yr. 13a NPT2 0 The point source does not use variable emissions. 13b SRCNAM EGU_ 250_ 00 Identify source scenario for 250 MW EGU base simulation. 13b X 205,105,100,200,8.0, 27.0,400,0,29185,0.0, 10423,0.0 Set source location, parameters and emissions data ( for species in CSPEC above) for 250 MW EGU base simulation. 14 NAR1 0 No area sources are included. 27 TABLE 3 ( cont.) CALPUFF Parameter Variables and Settings Input Group Variable Name Value ( setting) Explanation 14 NAR2 0 No area sources are included. 15 NLN2 0 No line sources are included. 16 NVL1 0 No volume sources are included. 16 NVL2 0 No volume sources are included. 17a NREC 144 Set 144 non gridded receptors. 17b X Identify receptors. 28 TABLE 4 CALPOST Parameter Variables and Settings Input Group Variable Name Value ( setting) Explanation 1 ASPEC VISIB Process visibility. 1 LD 1 Process discrete receptors. 1 NDRECP Select which receptors to process in this simulation. 2 LVSO4 T Include modeled sulfate in visibility calculation. 2 LVNO3 T Include modeled nitrate in visibility calculation 2 LVOC F Do not include modeled organic carbon in visibility calculation. 2 LVPMC F Do not include modeled coarse particles in visibility calculation. 2 LVPMF T Include modeled fine particulates in visibility calculation. 2 LVEC F Do not include modeled elemental carbon in visibility calculation. 2 LVBK F Do not include background in TOP( n) visibility calculations. 2 MVISBK 2 Compute background extinction by applying hourly RH adjustment to modeled sulfate and nitrate. 2 SPECPMC PMC Assign species name from CALPUFF file for coarse particles. 2 SPECPMF PM25 Assign species name from CALPUFF file for fine particles. 2 BKSO4 0.3,0.3,0.3,0.3, 0.3,0.3,0.3,0.3, 0.3,0.3,0.3,0.3 Set the background concentration of sulfate, in ug/ m3, for each month.

2 BKNO3 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0, 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0, 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 Set the background concentration of nitrate, in ug/ m3, for each month.

2 BKPMC 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0, 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0, 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 Set the background concentration of coarse particulates, in ug/ m3, for each month. 2 BKOC 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0, 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0, 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 Set the background concentration of organic carbon, in ug/ m3, for each month.

2 BKSOIL 8.5,8.5,8.5,8.5, 8.5,8.5,8.5,8.5, 8.5,8.5,8.5,8.5 Set the background concentration of soil ( dust), in ug/ m3, for each month.

2 BKEC 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0, 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0, 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 Set the background concentration of elemental carbon, in ug/ m3, for each month. 29 TABLE 4 ( cont.) CALPOST Parameter Variables and Settings Input Group Variable Name Value ( setting) Explanation 3 IPRTU 3 Set concentration units to ug/ m3.

3 L1HR F Do not report out 1 hour averages. 3 L3HR F Do not report out 3 hour averages. 3 L24HR T Report out 24 hour averages. 3 LRUNL F Do not report length of run averages. 3 LT50 F Do not produce " Top 50" tables. 3 LTOPN F Do not produce " Top( N)" tables. Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

30 Bkgnd. Conc. Total Year Day Recp . %_ SO4 %_ NO3 %_ PMF DV DV DV 1992 2 97 63.4% 36.4% 0.3% 7.330 0.251 7.581 1992 3 99 55.6% 44.3% 0.1% 7.607 1.587 9.195 1992 4 96 67.1% 31.5% 1.4% 7.221 0.000 7.221 1992 5 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.485 0.000 7.485 1992 6 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.426 0.000 8.426 1992 7 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.290 0.000 7.290 1992 8 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.297 0.000 7.297 1992 9 99 70.0% 29.8% 0.3% 7.888 1.088 8.976 1992 10 113 41.6% 58.3% 0.1% 9.172 1.031 10.203 1992 11 114 30.8% 69.1% 0.1% 9.617 0.583 10.200 1992 12 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.200 0.000 7.200 1992 13 111 37.1% 62.8% 0.1% 7.844 1.213 9.057 1992 14 101 65.1% 34.9% 0.1% 7.835 2.771 10.606 1992 15 101 36.5% 63.1% 0.5% 7.716 0.434 8.150 1992 16 108 30.8% 68.9% 0.3% 7.220 0.214 7.433 1992 17 114 37.9% 60.9% 1.3% 6.657 0.119 6.776 1992 18 109 30.3% 68.1% 1.7% 6.878 0.156 7.034 1992 19 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.090 0.000 7.090 1992 20 111 44.6% 54.9% 0.5% 6.989 0.170 7.159 1992 21 107 28.8% 70.7% 0.6% 7.391 0.349 7.740 1992 22 112 34.4% 64.6% 1.1% 6.852 0.277 7.130 1992 23 114 32.5% 67.2% 0.4% 7.427 0.932 8.360 1992 24 98 40.1% 59.0% 0.9% 8.421 0.257 8.678 1992 25 114 71.2% 26.6% 2.3% 6.702 0.048 6.749 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

31 1992 26 108 63.7% 36.3% 0.1% 8.304 2.307 10.610 1992 27 111 36.5% 63.0% 0.5% 7.634 0.064 7.698 1992 28 99 42.2% 57.5% 0.3% 7.611 2.375 9.986 1992 29 111 46.7% 53.2% 0.1% 8.240 0.799 9.040 1992 30 113 71.2% 28.6% 0.2% 7.711 2.110 9.821 1992 31 110 47.1% 52.8% 0.2% 7.542 3.551 11.094 1992 32 113 40.9% 58.5% 0.5% 7.162 0.338 7.500 1992 33 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.169 0.000 7.169 1992 34 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.347 0.000 7.347 1992 35 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.653 0.000 7.653 1992 36 109 35.3% 64.4% 0.3% 7.965 1.522 9.487 1992 37 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.058 0.000 7.058 1992 38 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.161 0.000 7.161 1992 39 114 49.8% 50.1% 0.1% 7.649 0.692 8.341 1992 40 114 38.5% 61.1% 0.3% 7.346 0.006 7.351 1992 41 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.020 0.000 7.020 1992 42 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.913 0.000 6.913 1992 43 114 83.9% 14.4% 1.7% 6.840 0.111 6.951 1992 44 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.774 0.000 6.774 1992 45 105 58.3% 41.4% 0.3% 8.129 0.740 8.868 1992 46 114 36.8% 62.9% 0.3% 7.592 0.271 7.863 1992 47 98 52.1% 47.5% 0.3% 9.627 0.988 10.615 1992 48 110 54.2% 45.6% 0.2% 7.812 1.056 8.867 1992 49 110 42.0% 57.8% 0.2% 8.126 0.191 8.317 1992 50 96 86.5% 13.2% 0.3% 8.192 0.703 8.895 1992 51 106 30.7% 69.0% 0.3% 7.604 0.398 8.001 1992 52 112 55.5% 44.1% 0.4% 6.959 0.193 7.152 1992 53 110 39.1% 59.7% 1.2% 6.959 0.438 7.397 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

32 1992 54 106 56.1% 43.5% 0.4% 7.341 1.510 8.851 1992 55 110 49.6% 50.2% 0.2% 8.083 2.195 10.278 1992 56 101 69.9% 29.9% 0.2% 9.861 0.097 9.958 1992 57 102 77.3% 22.6% 0.1% 10.331 1.519 11.850 1992 58 114 62.8% 30.7% 6.6% 10.164 0.003 10.167 1992 59 114 34.5% 65.2% 0.3% 7.825 1.033 8.858 1992 60 110 33.8% 65.2% 1.0% 7.051 0.293 7.344 1992 61 109 13.1% 84.6% 2.4% 7.049 0.012 7.060 1992 62 114 32.0% 66.9% 1.1% 6.720 0.292 7.013 1992 63 112 78.9% 19.3% 1.9% 6.746 0.381 7.127 1992 64 111 75.9% 23.6% 0.6% 7.033 0.231 7.264 1992 65 112 91.0% 9.0% 0.0% 10.021 0.582 10.603 1992 66 106 83.4% 16.5% 0.1% 7.566 2.364 9.930 1992 67 100 45.5% 54.2% 0.3% 7.738 1.831 9.569 1992 68 107 70.1% 29.7% 0.2% 7.987 0.721 8.708 1992 69 114 30.6% 69.3% 0.1% 8.900 0.624 9.524 1992 70 100 85.0% 14.3% 0.7% 7.662 0.151 7.813 1992 71 105 62.0% 37.6% 0.4% 7.777 0.151 7.928 1992 72 112 39.8% 58.3% 2.0% 7.263 0.028 7.291 1992 73 114 54.5% 44.1% 1.5% 6.710 0.056 6.766 1992 74 114 31.9% 66.4% 1.6% 6.712 0.000 6.712 1992 75 114 38.8% 60.3% 1.0% 6.806 0.748 7.553 1992 76 114 59.8% 39.3% 0.9% 6.903 0.002 6.905 1992 77 114 43.8% 55.4% 0.8% 6.703 0.050 6.754 1992 78 108 33.3% 65.4% 1.2% 7.559 0.376 7.935 1992 79 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.255 0.000 9.255 1992 80 111 70.3% 29.4% 0.3% 9.246 0.171 9.417 1992 81 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.761 0.000 7.761 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

33 1992 82 114 39.1% 60.2% 0.7% 6.837 0.000 6.837 1992 83 103 36.5% 63.2% 0.2% 8.183 1.224 9.407 1992 84 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.582 0.000 7.582 1992 85 114 75.0% 24.6% 0.4% 6.840 0.022 6.862 1992 86 101 48.9% 50.7% 0.4% 7.427 1.342 8.768 1992 87 113 75.9% 24.1% 0.0% 11.126 1.344 12.470 1992 88 114 66.4% 33.5% 0.1% 7.547 1.351 8.898 1992 89 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.042 0.000 7.042 1992 90 110 66.2% 33.0% 0.8% 7.083 0.007 7.091 1992 91 101 69.7% 30.2% 0.1% 9.079 2.591 11.670 1992 92 114 74.9% 24.2% 0.8% 7.420 0.074 7.494 1992 93 110 56.4% 43.3% 0.3% 7.856 0.897 8.753 1992 94 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.020 0.000 8.020 1992 95 114 54.0% 44.5% 1.6% 6.678 0.018 6.696 1992 96 106 63.4% 36.5% 0.1% 8.081 2.215 10.296 1992 97 114 75.9% 24.0% 0.1% 7.150 0.204 7.354 1992 98 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.960 0.000 6.960 1992 99 107 80.2% 18.6% 1.2% 6.812 0.650 7.462 1992 100 111 56.6% 43.3% 0.1% 7.337 0.419 7.756 1992 101 105 83.6% 15.8% 0.5% 7.291 0.795 8.086 1992 102 106 54.4% 45.5% 0.1% 8.467 0.719 9.186 1992 103 109 50.3% 49.6% 0.1% 8.362 3.776 12.138 1992 104 111 85.7% 14.1% 0.2% 8.823 0.308 9.131 1992 105 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.760 0.000 6.760 1992 106 111 88.7% 11.0% 0.4% 6.924 0.146 7.071 1992 107 114 91.2% 8.4% 0.4% 6.834 0.098 6.932 1992 108 103 79.7% 19.9% 0.5% 7.607 0.939 8.546 1992 109 106 48.1% 51.6% 0.3% 7.848 0.345 8.193 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

34 1992 110 110 43.0% 56.9% 0.1% 8.446 0.837 9.283 1992 111 105 62.6% 37.4% 0.1% 8.648 1.811 10.459 1992 112 96 95.2% 3.7% 1.2% 7.155 0.382 7.537 1992 113 97 80.2% 19.2% 0.6% 8.822 0.878 9.700 1992 114 99 44.7% 55.1% 0.3% 7.639 0.858 8.497 1992 115 113 84.9% 13.7% 1.5% 6.863 0.410 7.273 1992 116 108 81.2% 16.3% 2.5% 6.995 0.236 7.231 1992 117 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.348 0.000 8.348 1992 118 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.750 0.000 7.750 1992 119 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.150 0.000 7.150 1992 120 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.915 0.000 6.915 1992 121 113 89.4% 10.4% 0.2% 8.525 0.259 8.784 1992 122 109 70.9% 28.9% 0.2% 8.080 1.227 9.308 1992 123 112 95.0% 4.7% 0.4% 8.847 0.045 8.892 1992 124 107 88.8% 7.3% 3.9% 6.993 0.214 7.208 1992 125 114 86.5% 8.5% 5.0% 6.824 0.008 6.832 1992 126 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.017 0.000 7.017 1992 127 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.133 0.000 8.133 1992 128 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.558 0.000 7.558 1992 129 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.933 0.000 6.933 1992 130 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.638 0.000 7.638 1992 131 104 82.0% 17.7% 0.4% 8.192 0.970 9.162 1992 132 112 73.5% 26.4% 0.1% 8.089 0.482 8.571 1992 133 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.606 0.000 7.606 1992 134 101 95.4% 4.3% 0.3% 7.638 0.663 8.301 1992 135 99 89.1% 10.9% 0.1% 7.803 1.177 8.980 1992 136 113 83.0% 16.9% 0.1% 8.749 0.018 8.766 1992 137 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.871 0.000 6.871 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

35 1992 138 104 93.5% 6.2% 0.3% 7.865 0.355 8.220 1992 139 102 88.1% 11.6% 0.2% 7.655 1.805 9.460 1992 140 112 50.1% 49.9% 0.1% 10.562 1.074 11.636 1992 141 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.888 0.000 6.888 1992 142 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.902 0.000 6.902 1992 143 96 98.9% 0.1% 1.0% 6.693 0.019 6.711 1992 144 96 85.1% 14.5% 0.4% 6.850 0.104 6.954 1992 145 111 90.1% 9.8% 0.1% 7.595 0.779 8.374 1992 146 114 92.4% 7.2% 0.4% 8.254 0.009 8.263 1992 147 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.969 0.000 6.969 1992 148 114 94.6% 5.3% 0.1% 10.506 0.283 10.789 1992 149 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.927 0.000 6.927 1992 150 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.014 0.000 7.014 1992 151 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.908 0.000 6.908 1992 152 98 74.6% 25.4% 0.1% 9.090 0.545 9.636 1992 153 114 74.2% 25.7% 0.1% 9.363 0.757 10.121 1992 154 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.439 0.000 7.439 1992 155 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.319 0.000 7.319 1992 156 97 99.5% 0.1% 0.3% 7.269 0.192 7.461 1992 157 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.079 0.000 8.079 1992 158 104 97.9% 2.0% 0.1% 8.607 0.033 8.641 1992 159 112 76.8% 23.0% 0.2% 9.055 1.785 10.839 1992 160 104 83.7% 16.1% 0.2% 9.047 2.554 11.601 1992 161 109 63.8% 36.0% 0.2% 8.236 0.477 8.713 1992 162 114 98.4% 1.2% 0.4% 10.192 0.034 10.226 1992 163 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.803 0.000 6.803 1992 164 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.712 0.000 6.712 1992 165 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.849 0.000 6.849 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

36 1992 166 103 98.7% 1.0% 0.4% 8.121 0.446 8.568 1992 167 101 92.5% 7.4% 0.1% 8.294 1.130 9.424 1992 168 107 93.3% 6.6% 0.1% 8.124 0.363 8.487 1992 169 114 97.1% 2.9% 0.1% 8.107 0.021 8.129 1992 170 97 97.7% 1.5% 0.8% 7.069 0.457 7.526 1992 171 100 92.7% 6.8% 0.5% 7.715 0.971 8.686 1992 172 104 92.4% 6.9% 0.7% 7.482 0.467 7.948 1992 173 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.410 0.000 7.410 1992 174 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.270 0.000 7.270 1992 175 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.382 0.000 7.382 1992 176 106 96.9% 2.4% 0.7% 7.631 0.363 7.994 1992 177 112 83.0% 16.7% 0.3% 8.518 0.414 8.932 1992 178 114 75.5% 24.5% 0.1% 9.971 3.653 13.624 1992 179 114 54.3% 45.7% 0.1% 10.455 0.945 11.400 1992 180 113 49.7% 50.2% 0.1% 8.743 0.504 9.247 1992 181 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.147 0.000 7.147 1992 182 104 98.4% 1.3% 0.3% 7.889 0.713 8.602 1992 183 106 78.0% 21.7% 0.3% 8.127 1.358 9.484 1992 184 109 70.4% 29.5% 0.1% 9.004 1.567 10.570 1992 185 105 98.5% 1.3% 0.1% 8.462 0.589 9.051 1992 186 103 95.0% 4.6% 0.4% 8.030 1.355 9.384 1992 187 113 62.4% 37.5% 0.1% 9.789 1.147 10.936 1992 188 112 54.1% 45.8% 0.1% 8.814 1.581 10.395 1992 189 114 22.5% 77.3% 0.2% 9.835 0.245 10.080 1992 190 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.230 0.000 7.230 1992 191 112 82.1% 17.8% 0.1% 8.218 0.537 8.755 1992 192 112 96.9% 2.4% 0.7% 7.791 0.125 7.917 1992 193 113 98.5% 0.3% 1.2% 7.136 0.374 7.510 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

37 1992 194 114 89.6% 9.8% 0.6% 7.498 0.626 8.124 1992 195 109 91.2% 8.3% 0.5% 7.676 0.922 8.598 1992 196 110 91.3% 8.2% 0.5% 7.614 0.254 7.869 1992 197 111 83.7% 15.4% 0.8% 7.585 0.809 8.395 1992 198 107 83.1% 15.4% 1.5% 7.909 0.200 8.109 1992 199 114 64.4% 35.4% 0.2% 9.542 0.973 10.515 1992 200 101 76.2% 23.3% 0.5% 8.432 0.850 9.281 1992 201 114 71.4% 28.4% 0.2% 9.009 1.283 10.292 1992 202 114 79.2% 20.7% 0.1% 9.485 2.040 11.525 1992 203 114 72.2% 27.7% 0.1% 8.585 2.382 10.967 1992 204 111 74.4% 25.5% 0.1% 8.803 0.940 9.743 1992 205 114 74.4% 25.5% 0.1% 10.703 0.599 11.302 1992 206 111 97.0% 2.9% 0.1% 8.720 0.763 9.483 1992 207 113 91.4% 8.5% 0.1% 9.870 1.565 11.436 1992 208 114 98.7% 1.1% 0.2% 9.816 0.154 9.970 1992 209 114 65.9% 34.0% 0.1% 10.441 1.733 12.174 1992 210 114 47.4% 52.5% 0.1% 9.344 0.169 9.513 1992 211 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.787 0.000 7.787 1992 212 113 98.7% 0.9% 0.4% 8.602 0.391 8.993 1992 213 113 68.3% 31.5% 0.3% 8.374 0.659 9.033 1992 214 101 37.5% 62.4% 0.1% 8.228 0.350 8.578 1992 215 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.720 0.000 7.720 1992 216 105 90.6% 9.2% 0.2% 8.742 1.131 9.873 1992 217 108 55.0% 44.9% 0.1% 8.683 3.621 12.304 1992 218 109 66.0% 33.9% 0.2% 8.508 0.683 9.191 1992 219 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.374 0.000 7.374 1992 220 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.228 0.000 7.228 1992 221 96 99.0% 0.4% 0.5% 7.131 0.506 7.637 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

38 1992 222 102 94.8% 4.2% 1.1% 7.471 0.294 7.765 1992 223 106 62.7% 36.9% 0.4% 8.058 0.397 8.455 1992 224 114 98.4% 1.4% 0.2% 8.609 0.076 8.686 1992 225 111 82.8% 16.9% 0.3% 8.557 0.536 9.092 1992 226 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.259 0.000 7.259 1992 227 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.596 0.000 7.596 1992 228 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.777 0.000 8.777 1992 229 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.328 0.000 9.328 1992 230 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.147 0.000 8.147 1992 231 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.376 0.000 8.376 1992 232 112 96.9% 3.1% 0.1% 9.331 0.735 10.066 1992 233 112 72.6% 27.2% 0.2% 8.444 1.677 10.121 1992 234 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.494 0.000 7.494 1992 235 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.061 0.000 7.061 1992 236 96 86.2% 13.6% 0.2% 7.178 0.373 7.551 1992 237 96 86.6% 13.1% 0.3% 7.373 0.358 7.731 1992 238 102 98.3% 1.4% 0.4% 8.553 0.998 9.551 1992 239 105 69.2% 30.8% 0.1% 9.059 2.739 11.798 1992 240 114 98.5% 1.4% 0.1% 7.706 0.000 7.706 1992 241 102 97.3% 2.6% 0.1% 8.834 1.794 10.627 1992 242 99 78.6% 21.3% 0.1% 8.727 1.969 10.695 1992 243 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.357 0.000 7.357 1992 244 109 42.7% 57.2% 0.2% 7.920 2.410 10.329 1992 245 112 86.3% 12.6% 1.1% 7.313 0.113 7.426 1992 246 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.400 0.000 7.400 1992 247 98 99.5% 0.2% 0.4% 7.974 0.405 8.379 1992 248 108 74.3% 25.6% 0.1% 8.291 0.743 9.034 1992 249 111 71.1% 28.8% 0.1% 8.914 0.972 9.886 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

39 1992 250 96 99.0% 0.6% 0.4% 7.928 0.105 8.033 1992 251 97 92.6% 7.1% 0.3% 7.685 1.027 8.713 1992 252 102 90.8% 9.0% 0.2% 9.290 1.031 10.321 1992 253 104 66.7% 33.2% 0.1% 8.999 2.120 11.118 1992 254 110 49.3% 50.6% 0.1% 9.305 0.848 10.153 1992 255 103 32.3% 67.5% 0.1% 9.070 1.571 10.640 1992 256 114 61.2% 38.5% 0.2% 8.867 0.372 9.240 1992 257 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.017 0.000 8.017 1992 258 99 96.4% 3.4% 0.1% 9.012 1.359 10.371 1992 259 102 79.5% 20.5% 0.1% 9.429 4.292 13.721 1992 260 104 81.1% 18.9% 0.0% 9.567 3.119 12.686 1992 261 104 90.7% 9.2% 0.1% 9.329 4.734 14.063 1992 262 108 58.1% 41.8% 0.1% 8.446 2.225 10.671 1992 263 105 61.1% 38.8% 0.1% 9.621 5.411 15.032 1992 264 111 17.5% 81.6% 0.9% 8.906 0.021 8.927 1992 265 97 96.4% 3.2% 0.4% 7.827 0.162 7.989 1992 266 101 88.6% 10.8% 0.7% 7.808 0.605 8.413 1992 267 104 94.2% 5.1% 0.7% 8.692 0.300 8.992 1992 268 114 95.5% 4.0% 0.5% 7.134 0.020 7.154 1992 269 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.013 0.000 7.013 1992 270 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.539 0.000 7.539 1992 271 103 92.9% 7.0% 0.1% 9.967 2.160 12.127 1992 272 108 87.6% 12.2% 0.1% 8.772 1.187 9.959 1992 273 110 80.4% 19.6% 0.0% 9.261 2.417 11.678 1992 274 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.928 0.000 6.928 1992 275 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.536 0.000 7.536 1992 276 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.401 0.000 7.401 1992 277 111 88.6% 11.3% 0.1% 8.236 1.281 9.516 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

40 1992 278 111 53.6% 46.3% 0.1% 8.918 4.091 13.009 1992 279 112 80.4% 19.6% 0.1% 10.272 0.696 10.968 1992 280 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.938 0.000 6.938 1992 281 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.187 0.000 7.187 1992 282 96 93.8% 5.9% 0.4% 7.576 1.068 8.643 1992 283 100 41.9% 58.0% 0.1% 8.707 3.931 12.639 1992 284 98 73.5% 26.2% 0.3% 8.585 0.590 9.175 1992 285 110 41.0% 58.8% 0.1% 8.231 1.673 9.904 1992 286 104 40.7% 58.8% 0.5% 8.254 0.341 8.596 1992 287 112 83.1% 16.2% 0.8% 7.702 0.086 7.787 1992 288 114 79.6% 19.6% 0.8% 7.531 0.271 7.802 1992 289 109 44.0% 55.7% 0.3% 7.526 2.030 9.556 1992 290 108 41.3% 58.4% 0.3% 8.201 1.239 9.440 1992 291 105 56.0% 43.4% 0.6% 8.073 0.774 8.847 1992 292 114 91.9% 4.8% 3.3% 6.850 0.012 6.862 1992 293 114 75.0% 24.2% 0.8% 7.103 0.069 7.172 1992 294 114 79.8% 19.5% 0.7% 6.871 0.039 6.910 1992 295 102 54.7% 44.0% 1.3% 7.710 0.324 8.034 1992 296 109 67.4% 30.8% 1.8% 7.094 0.067 7.160 1992 297 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.833 0.000 7.833 1992 298 112 77.7% 22.2% 0.1% 8.585 0.999 9.584 1992 299 112 78.9% 21.0% 0.2% 7.928 1.561 9.489 1992 300 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.036 0.000 7.036 1992 301 114 84.3% 14.0% 1.7% 7.405 0.136 7.541 1992 302 114 50.5% 48.9% 0.7% 7.127 0.094 7.221 1992 303 106 74.5% 25.4% 0.1% 7.761 3.521 11.282 1992 304 112 69.0% 30.9% 0.1% 10.486 6.220 16.706 1992 305 114 58.9% 41.1% 0.0% 11.784 4.357 16.141 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

41 1992 306 114 76.3% 22.2% 1.4% 10.469 0.004 10.473 1992 307 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.370 0.000 8.370 1992 308 96 31.7% 65.2% 3.1% 8.617 0.013 8.630 1992 309 109 53.9% 45.8% 0.3% 7.803 0.706 8.509 1992 310 107 63.7% 36.0% 0.3% 7.122 0.274 7.396 1992 311 114 58.1% 41.6% 0.3% 10.321 0.104 10.424 1992 312 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.399 0.000 7.399 1992 313 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.815 0.000 7.815 1992 314 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.790 0.000 7.790 1992 315 96 88.8% 10.7% 0.5% 7.098 0.382 7.480 1992 316 99 48.6% 51.0% 0.4% 7.051 0.965 8.016 1992 317 105 59.4% 40.1% 0.4% 9.319 1.299 10.618 1992 318 100 26.7% 73.1% 0.1% 8.790 1.784 10.574 1992 319 114 68.7% 28.6% 2.7% 6.824 0.083 6.907 1992 320 114 73.0% 26.3% 0.7% 6.833 0.363 7.197 1992 321 114 43.7% 55.9% 0.4% 6.937 0.400 7.337 1992 322 106 58.3% 41.4% 0.4% 7.339 0.380 7.719 1992 323 108 56.2% 42.4% 1.4% 6.933 0.248 7.182 1992 324 109 39.9% 59.7% 0.4% 8.035 0.331 8.367 1992 325 114 62.0% 38.0% 0.1% 9.713 0.278 9.991 1992 326 99 52.0% 47.9% 0.1% 8.507 0.022 8.529 1992 327 98 78.1% 21.8% 0.1% 9.944 1.093 11.037 1992 328 99 43.7% 56.2% 0.1% 10.076 4.297 14.373 1992 329 110 77.4% 22.0% 0.6% 7.158 0.146 7.304 1992 330 97 48.7% 51.1% 0.2% 8.346 0.078 8.424 1992 331 100 56.4% 43.5% 0.1% 9.316 4.028 13.344 1992 332 100 32.4% 67.5% 0.1% 8.012 1.374 9.386 1992 333 114 70.3% 29.1% 0.7% 7.558 0.126 7.685 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

42 1992 334 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.663 0.000 8.663 1992 335 114 59.7% 39.6% 0.8% 7.127 0.094 7.221 1992 336 114 43.6% 55.9% 0.6% 7.491 0.619 8.110 1992 337 111 47.5% 52.3% 0.2% 8.294 1.281 9.575 1992 338 103 35.4% 64.3% 0.3% 8.253 1.972 10.225 1992 339 114 50.4% 48.9% 0.7% 6.785 0.003 6.788 1992 340 105 43.4% 56.2% 0.4% 7.536 0.965 8.501 1992 341 111 30.9% 67.6% 1.5% 7.333 0.030 7.363 1992 342 107 48.0% 51.5% 0.5% 7.309 0.472 7.782 1992 343 110 31.3% 68.3% 0.4% 7.544 0.161 7.704 1992 344 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.914 0.000 6.914 1992 345 96 43.4% 55.8% 0.9% 6.889 0.000 6.889 1992 346 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.422 0.000 10.422 1992 347 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.383 0.000 9.383 1992 348 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.060 0.000 8.060 1992 349 96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.247 0.000 7.247 1992 350 96 58.0% 41.8% 0.2% 7.791 0.004 7.796 1992 351 97 45.9% 53.9% 0.3% 7.538 3.009 10.548 1992 352 105 67.5% 32.5% 0.0% 10.278 5.880 16.158 1992 353 112 72.7% 27.2% 0.0% 10.948 1.161 12.109 1992 354 96 47.0% 52.7% 0.3% 7.427 0.042 7.468 1992 355 103 50.6% 48.0% 1.4% 7.021 0.474 7.495 1992 356 114 58.4% 41.5% 0.1% 10.023 1.475 11.498 1992 357 102 56.5% 42.6% 1.0% 7.606 0.428 8.034 1992 358 112 64.1% 35.9% 0.1% 8.618 1.862 10.480 1992 359 113 86.4% 13.5% 0.1% 10.548 1.154 11.702 1992 360 114 71.9% 25.8% 2.3% 6.862 0.000 6.862 1992 361 106 42.2% 57.3% 0.5% 7.202 0.433 7.635 Table 5 Deciviews for Receptors 200 km from a 250 MW EGU ( Base)

43 1992 362 114 54.6% 42.4% 3.0% 6.720 0.017 6.737 1992 363 96 51.3% 48.0% 0.7% 6.969 0.235 7.203 1992 364 99 59.0% 40.7% 0.4% 7.799 0.582 8.381 1992 365 96 73.8% 26.2% 0.1% 8.827 2.792 11.620 44 TABLE 6 Maximim DDV for Receptor Distances for Each Year 250 MW and 750 MW EGUs 250 MW Dist ( km) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 100 8.767 11.857 10.038 9.525 9.179 120 7.989 10.063 9.146 8.195 8.198 140 7.330 8.713 8.422 7.750 6.703 160 6.952 7.590 6.964 6.808 6.060 180 6.870 6.696 6.296 5.980 7.411 200 7.351 6.220 7.398 5.581 7.029 750 MW Dist ( km) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 100 14.124 19.120 18.055 15.894 15.479 120 13.698 17.734 15.844 15.341 15.010 140 13.399 16.087 14.827 14.909 12.515 160 14.061 14.537 13.273 13.568 12.584 180 13.954 13.484 12.589 12.282 14.702 200 14.563 12.813 14.266 11.564 14.107 45 TABLE 7 Maximim DDV for Receptor Distances for All Years 250 MW and 750 MW EGUs MW Dist ( km) DDV Year Day Recp.

250 100 11.857 1992 261 10 250 120 10.063 1992 304 35 250 140 8.713 1992 263 48 250 160 7.590 1992 263 67 250 180 7.411 1995 284 85 250 200 7.398 1993 13 98 750 100 19.120 1992 261 10 750 120 17.734 1992 304 35 750 140 16.087 1992 304 54 750 160 14.537 1992 304 73 750 180 14.702 1995 284 85 750 200 14.563 1991 38 96 46 TABLE 8 Comparison of Base and Control Scenarios on DDV for 5 Years for 250 MW and 750 MW EGUs 250 MW EGU 90% Control 95% Control Year Day Recp. Base DDV Difference DDV Difference 1992 261 10 11.857 2.828 9.029 2.208 9.649 1992 304 35 10.063 2.607 7.456 2.318 7.745 1992 263 48 8.713 1.981 6.732 1.652 7.061 1992 263 67 7.590 1.610 5.980 1.320 6.270 1995 284 85 7.411 1.317 6.094 0.963 6.448 1993 13 98 7.398 1.342 6.056 0.978 6.420 750 MW EGU 90% Control 95% Control Year Day Recp. Base DDV Difference DDV Difference 1992 261 10 19.120 6.802 12.318 5.537 13.583 1992 304 35 17.734 6.368 11.366 5.768 11.966 1992 304 54 16.087 5.258 10.829 4.722 11.365 1992 304 73 14.537 4.389 10.148 3.882 10.655 1995 284 85 14.702 3.618 11.084 2.753 11.949 1991 38 96 14.563 3.616 10.947 2.770 11.793 47 TABLE 9 Comparison of CALPUFF and CALPUFF Screen Analysis CALPUFF Analysis CALPUFF Screening Model used CALPUFF CALPUFF Input meteorology Process 5 years of location specific, meteorology data Representative met location ( data already processed) Terrain included Site specific terrain included None ( assumed flat) Source Receptor distances Source to Class I area receptor Source to Class I area receptor Location of Visibility impact Maximum impact at specific receptors at appropriate distance/ direction from source Maximum impact in any direction at a particular sourcereceptor distance Purpose( s) of results Demonstrate a specific source's contribution to visibility impairment in Class I area( s). Demonstrate a specific source's contribution to visibility impairment in Class I area( s).

  and Develop a look up table to determine SO2 emission rates for given sourcereceptor distances 48 Table 10 Results from the Athens, GA Screening Analysis SO2 Emissions 50 km 100 km 150 km 200 km 250 km 300 km 1989 500 0.144 0.151 0.137 0.114 0.100 0.091 1990 500 0.109 0.111 0.091 0.101 0.104 0.096 1986 500 0.140 0.101 0.098 0.096 0.090 0.086 1988 500 0.090 0.081 0.080 0.075 0.066 0.057 1987 500 0.119 0.081 0.087 0.070 0.069 0.085 1989 1000 0.285 0.301 0.274 0.227 0.201 0.182 1990 1000 0.212 0.221 0.181 0.201 0.206 0.193 1986 1000 0.279 0.201 0.196 0.192 0.180 0.172 1988 1000 0.179 0.163 0.160 0.150 0.133 0.115 1987 1000 0.237 0.162 0.175 0.140 0.139 0.169 1989 2000 0.557 0.596 0.545 0.452 0.400 0.364 1990 2000 0.411 0.438 0.360 0.397 0.410 0.383 1986 2000 0.553 0.398 0.389 0.382 0.359 0.343 1988 2000 0.354 0.322 0.318 0.298 0.264 0.229 1987 2000 0.468 0.324 0.348 0.279 0.278 0.338 1989 5000 1.306 1.431 1.324 1.105 0.979 0.896 1990 5000 0.967 1.054 0.880 0.967 0.996 0.936 1986 5000 1.335 0.957 0.948 0.932 0.880 0.841 1988 5000 0.863 0.780 0.777 0.731 0.650 0.564 1987 5000 1.133 0.795 0.855 0.684 0.686 0.831 1989 10000 2.058 2.324 2.176 1.842 1.634 1.520 1986 10000 2.273 1.611 1.623 1.609 1.526 1.455 1990 10000 1.606 1.757 1.433 1.590 1.647 1.555 1988 10000 1.650 1.371 1.399 1.334 1.192 1.045 1987 10000 2.146 1.274 1.475 1.201 1.205 1.397 1989 15000 3.262 3.709 3.553 3.042 2.706 2.501 1990 15000 2.236 2.744 2.451 2.674 2.744 2.594 1986 15000 3.570 2.550 2.586 2.568 2.444 2.347 1988 15000 2.393 2.102 2.155 2.050 1.840 1.614 1987 15000 3.073 2.202 2.398 1.928 1.942 2.331 1989 20000 3.952 4.578 4.484 3.885 3.465 3.214 1990 20000 2.874 3.273 3.154 3.431 3.519 3.332 1986 20000 4.514 3.221 3.296 3.287 3.138 3.020 1988 20000 3.077 2.664 2.765 2.645 2.385 2.101 1987 20000 3.918 2.830 3.091 2.494 2.508 3.003 49 Table 11 Results from the Oklahoma City Screening Analysis SO2 Emissions 50 km 100 km 150 km 200 km 250 km 300 km 1986 500 0.126 0.115 0.116 0.113 0.108 0.076 1989 500 0.117 0.112 0.098 0.104 0.092 0.074 1990 500 0.086 0.103 0.101 0.090 0.082 0.077 1987 500 0.111 0.088 0.082 0.079 0.081 0.081 1988 500 0.078 0.091 0.073 0.062 0.057 0.046 1986 1000 0.247 0.229 0.231 0.225 0.216 0.152 1989 1000 0.234 0.224 0.015 0.208 0.183 0.147 1990 1000 0.167 0.205 0.202 0.180 0.164 0.155 1987 1000 0.220 0.175 0.165 0.157 0.163 0.163 1988 1000 0.159 0.181 0.146 0.124 0.115 0.093 1986 2000 0.482 0.450 0.458 0.448 0.431 0.304 1989 2000 0.462 0.446 0.387 0.414 0.364 0.293 1990 2000 0.323 0.406 0.402 0.359 0.328 0.309 1987 2000 0.434 0.347 0.327 0.315 0.325 0.324 1988 2000 0.320 0.359 0.292 0.247 0.231 0.185 1986 5000 1.147 1.077 1.104 1.090 1.053 0.750 1989 5000 1.116 1.089 0.950 1.010 0.982 0.718 1990 5000 0.764 0.972 0.979 0.881 0.801 0.759 1987 5000 1.043 0.841 0.798 0.774 0.801 0.799 1988 5000 0.795 0.873 0.717 0.609 0.572 0.459 1986 10000 1.943 1.797 1.746 1.742 1.703 1.234 1989 10000 2.115 1.866 1.602 1.740 1.561 1.343 1990 10000 1.245 1.564 1.601 1.460 1.310 1.265 1987 10000 1.933 1.432 1.383 1.289 1.340 1.338 1988 10000 1.251 1.538 1.255 1.019 0.881 0.808 1986 15000 2.601 2.637 2.907 2.937 2.881 2.115 1989 15000 3.029 2.978 2.638 2.770 2.483 2.016 1990 15000 1.864 2.558 2.651 2.442 2.195 2.102 1987 15000 2.804 2.254 2.173 2.139 2.238 2.245 1988 15000 2.227 2.395 1.978 1.726 1.635 1.329 1986 20000 3.243 3.147 3.639 3.715 3.667 2.727 1989 20000 3.862 3.773 3.387 3.535 3.190 2.605 1990 20000 2.103 3.084 3.348 3.122 2.827 2.681 1987 20000 3.571 2.836 2.755 2.725 2.870 2.889 1988 20000 2.948 3.060 2.528 2.227 2.126 1.739 50 Table 12 Results from the Huntington, WV Screening Analysis SO2 Emissions 50 km 100 km 150 km 200 km 250 km 300 km 1989 500 0.147 0.121 0.158 0.177 0.146 0.089 1987 500 0.159 0.158 0.147 0.151 0.134 0.095 1986 500 0.175 0.140 0.151 0.145 0.123 0.097 1990 500 0.159 0.121 0.110 0.103 0.093 0.077 1988 500 0.138 0.127 0.109 0.087 0.064 0.058 1989 1000 0.293 0.241 0.315 0.352 0.292 0.178 1987 1000 0.316 0.315 0.293 0.302 0.266 0.190 1986 1000 0.347 0.280 0.301 0.290 0.245 0.193 1990 1000 0.316 0.243 0.219 0.206 0.186 0.153 1988 1000 0.275 0.253 0.218 0.174 0.128 0.115 1989 2000 0.578 0.477 0.624 0.697 0.579 0.355 1987 2000 0.622 0.624 0.580 0.597 0.527 0.377 1986 2000 0.683 0.554 0.597 0.575 0.486 0.384 1990 2000 0.623 0.484 0.435 0.411 0.370 0.303 1988 2000 0.545 0.501 0.432 0.345 0.256 0.230 1989 5000 1.386 1.155 1.503 1.673 1.403 0.874 1987 5000 1.490 1.501 1.401 1.440 1.277 0.922 1986 5000 1.617 1.339 1.443 1.390 1.179 0.938 1990 5000 1.492 1.183 1.058 1.009 0.907 0.742 1988 5000 1.318 1.216 1.049 0.843 0.634 0.566 1989 10000 2.497 2.068 2.392 2.671 2.280 1.472 1987 10000 2.685 2.458 2.363 2.445 2.191 1.608 1986 10000 2.701 2.283 2.354 2.296 2.011 1.610 1990 10000 2.650 2.077 1.888 1.703 1.646 1.419 1988 10000 2.380 2.157 1.946 1.582 1.161 1.068 1989 15000 3.683 3.112 4.007 4.413 3.781 2.461 1987 15000 3.931 3.952 3.752 3.850 3.457 2.567 1986 15000 4.080 3.569 3.860 3.741 3.220 2.607 1990 15000 3.932 3.217 2.903 2.812 2.532 2.083 1988 15000 3.548 3.297 2.878 2.352 1.815 1.616 1989 20000 4.655 3.952 5.066 5.557 4.800 3.179 1987 20000 4.958 4.961 4.747 4.872 4.398 3.303 1986 20000 5.145 4.503 4.881 4.745 4.109 3.357 1990 20000 4.953 4.090 3.713 3.614 3.262 2.693 1988 20000 4.503 4.196 3.684 3.030 2.361 2.104 51 Table 13 Results from the Phoenix Screening Analysis SO2 Emissions 50 km 100 km 150 km 200 km 250 km 300 km 1990 500 0.084 0.059 0.052 0.053 0.049 0.035 1989 500 0.066 0.066 0.058 0.039 0.025 0.017 1986 500 0.051 0.039 0.037 0.037 0.034 0.024 1987 500 0.058 0.049 0.048 0.037 0.030 0.029 1988 500 0.053 0.039 0.034 0.029 0.032 0.017 1990 1000 0.169 0.119 0.103 0.106 0.097 0.070 1989 1000 0.131 0.131 0.116 0.079 0.050 0.034 1986 1000 0.102 0.078 0.074 0.075 0.068 0.048 1987 1000 0.115 0.098 0.097 0.073 0.061 0.057 1988 1000 0.106 0.078 0.068 0.058 0.065 0.034 1990 2000 0.335 0.236 0.205 0.212 0.194 0.139 1989 2000 0.256 0.260 0.232 0.158 0.100 0.069 1986 2000 0.203 0.156 0.149 0.149 0.136 0.096 1987 2000 0.226 0.195 0.192 0.146 0.121 0.114 1988 2000 0.212 0.155 0.136 0.115 0.129 0.068 1990 5000 0.809 0.579 0.506 0.521 0.477 0.344 1989 5000 0.595 0.639 0.572 0.392 0.249 0.171 1986 5000 0.500 0.386 0.370 0.371 0.337 0.240 1987 5000 0.543 0.481 0.475 0.360 0.299 0.283 1988 5000 0.522 0.383 0.337 0.287 0.321 0.169 1990 10000 1.303 1.126 0.986 1.015 0.932 0.676 1987 10000 0.911 0.931 0.863 0.708 0.589 0.555 1989 10000 1.051 1.091 0.971 0.675 0.455 0.340 1986 10000 0.971 0.716 0.654 0.656 0.595 0.463 1988 10000 0.966 0.751 0.324 0.519 0.521 0.296 1990 15000 2.162 1.646 1.446 1.488 1.369 0.998 1989 15000 0.160 1.795 1.634 1.143 0.731 0.505 1986 15000 1.431 1.115 1.072 1.078 0.986 0.708 1987 15000 1.474 1.366 1.358 1.044 0.872 0.826 1988 15000 1.490 1.108 0.969 0.835 0.935 0.502 1990 20000 2.735 2.140 1.885 1.938 1.786 1.309 1989 20000 2.018 2.320 2.126 1.499 0.963 0.668 1986 20000 1.865 1.460 1.405 1.413 1.297 0.934 1987 20000 1.876 1.783 1.770 1.369 1.146 1.087 1988 20000 1.938 1.451 1.268 1.097 1.229 0.664 52 TABLE 14 Example of a Look Up Table Distance East West 50 2606 3330 60 2631 3497 80 2683 3831 100 2734 4166 120 2785 4500 140 2837 4835 160 2888 5169 180 2939 5503 200 2991 5838 220 3042 6172 240 3093 6507 260 3145 6841 280 3196 7175 300 3248 7510 320 3299 7844 340 3350 8179 360 3402 8513 380 3453 8848 400 3504 9182 420 3556 9516 440 3607 9851 460 3658 10185 480 3710 10520 500 3761 10854


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20775-20779]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8802]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64244; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC To Expand the Number of Components in the
PHLX Gold/Silver Sector\SM\ Known as XAU\SM\, on Which Options Are
Listed and Traded

April 7, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on March 31, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to expand the
number of components in the PHLX Gold/Silver Sector\SM\ (the ``Index''
or ``XAU\SM\''), on which options are listed and traded, and the Index
weighting methodology.\3\ No other changes are made to the Index or the
options thereon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PHLX Gold/Silver Sector\SM\ may also be known as Gold/Silver
Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/Filings/, at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to expand to thirty the number of
components in the PHLX Gold/Silver Sector\SM\ or XAU\SM\, on which
options are listed and traded, and change the Index weighting
methodology to modified capitalization-weighted.\4\ No other changes
are made to the Index or the options thereon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that changing the weighting of the Index
from capitalization-weighting to modified capitalization-weighting
does not by itself require a rule filing proposal because both
weighting methodologies are acceptable per the current generic index
listing standards found in Rule 1009A(b)(2). The weighting change is
included in this proposal only in conjunction with increasing the
number of Index components by more than the amount indicated in Rule
1009A(c)(2), which requires a rule filing proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    XAU\SM\ options subsequent to this proposal will be identical to
XAU\SM\ options that are currently listed and trading except for the
number of components in the underlying Index; and will trade pursuant
to similar contract specifications (updated regarding components and
weighting methodology).\5\ The only post-proposal difference in XAU\SM\
options is that they will overlay an Index with thirty components where
the current Index has sixteen components, and the Index will be
modified capitalization-weighted where the current Index is
capitalization-weighted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The contract specifications for XAU\SM\ options are
available at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=phlxsectorscontractspecs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Gold/Silver Index is a P.M. settled capitalization-weighted
index composed of the stocks of widely held U.S. listed companies
involved in the gold/silver mining industry. Options on the Index have
an American style expiration and the settlement value is based on the
closing values of the component stocks on the day exercised, or on the
last trading day prior to expiration.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ While the settlement value of a P.M. settled index such as
XAU\SM\ is based on closing prices of the component securities, the
settlement value of A.M. settled securities is based on opening
prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1983 XAU\SM\ options were approved for listing and trading on
the Exchange as the first options on a narrow-based index; \7\ XAU\SM\
options have been listed and have traded continuously on the Exchange
since December 19, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20437 (December 2,
1983), 48 FR 55229 (December 9, 1983) (order approving listing and
trading options overlying the Gold/Silver Index and the Gaming/Hotel
Index).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1994, the Exchange established initial listing standards in Rule
1009A(b) and (d) for options on indexes that were designed to allow the
Exchange to initially list and trade options on narrow-based indexes
\8\ and broad based indexes \9\ pursuant to generic listing standards
(the ``Index Options Listing Standards'').\10\ In the 1994 generic
index options filing, the Exchange also established generic continued
listing standards in Rule 1009A(c) for narrow-based and broad-based
index options, which apply to index options once they are listed
pursuant to generic listing standards (the ``Index Options Maintenance
Standards'').\11\ Because the Index is P.M. settled, it does not meet
the A.M. settlement requirement of the Index Options Listing
Standards.\12\ However, the index meets all of the applicable Index
Options Maintenance Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A narrow-based index or industry index is defined as: An
index designed to be representative of a particular industry or a
group of related industries. The term ``narrow-based index''
includes indices the constituents of which are all headquartered
within a single country. Rule 1000A(b)(12).
    Currently, in addition to Gold/Silver Index, other narrow-based
sector indexes on which options are listed and traded on the
Exchange include: KBW Bank Index\SM\ (BKX\SM\); PHLX Housing
Sector\SM\ (HGX\SM\); PHLX Utility Sector\SM\ (UTY\SM\); SIG Energy
MLP Index\SM\ (SVO\TM\); SIG Oil Exploration & Production Index\TM\
(EPX\SM\); PHLX Semiconductor Sector\SM\ (SOX\SM\); PHLX Oil Service
Sector\SM\ (OSX\SM\); and NASDAQ Internet Index\SM\ (QNET\SM\).
    \9\ A broad-based index or market index is defined as: An index
designed to be representative of a stock market as a whole or of a
range of companies in unrelated industries. Rule 1000A(b)(11).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34157 (June 3,
1994), 59 FR 30062-01 (June 10, 1994) (order approving File Nos. SR-
Amex-92-35; SR-CBOE-93-59; SR-NYSE-94-17; SR-PSE-94-07; and SR-Phlx-
94-10) (the ``generic index options filing'').
    \11\ The generic listing standards in Rule 1009A pursuant to
Rule 19b-4(e) of the Act, see Securities Exchange Act Release No.
40761 (December 8, 1998), 63 FR 70952 (December 22, 1998), are
similar to those of other options exchanges such as, for example,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; International Stock
Exchange LLC; and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC.
    \12\ Rule 1009A(b)(1) requires A.M. settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1996, the Exchange received approval to apply to the Index all
the Index Options Maintenance Standards of Rule 1009A(c) except the
requirement that an index option be designated as A.M. settled per
subsection (b)(1).\13\ Subsection (c) also requires, among other
things, that the Index comply with the concentration requirements
specifically set forth in 1009A(b)(6) regarding the Gold/Silver
Index.\14\ The

Index meets all of the subsection (c) Index Options Maintenance
Standards (the A.M. settlement requirement is not applicable to the
Index) for continued trading of options overlying the Index, with one
exception as noted below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37334 (June 19,
1996), 61 FR 33162 (June 26, 1996) (SR-Phlx-96-03) (order approving
use of modified Rule 1009A(c) generic maintenance standards in
respect of options on the Index).
    The maintenance provisions in subsection (c) of Rule 1009A
state, in part, as applicable to XAU\SM\: (1) The conditions stated
in subparagraphs (b)(1), (3), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and
(12), must continue to be satisfied, provided that the conditions
stated in subparagraph (b)(6) must be satisfied only as to the first
day of January and July in each year; (2) The total number of
component securities in the index may not increase or decrease by
more than 33 \1/3\% from the number of component securities in the
index at the time of its initial listing, and in no event may be
less than nine component securities; (3) Trading volume of each
component security in the index must be at least 500,000 shares for
each of the last six months, except that for each of the lowest
weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate
account for no more than 10% of the weight of the index, trading
volume must be at least 400,000 shares for each of the last six
months; (4) In a capitalization-weighted index, the lesser of the
five highest weighted component securities in the index or the
highest weighted component securities in the index that in the
aggregate represent at least 30% of the total number of stocks in
the index each have had an average monthly trading volume of at
least 1,000,000 shares over the past six months.
    \14\ Id. Regarding concentration requirements, subsection
(b)(6)(i) states that with respect to the Gold/Silver Index, no
single component shall account for more than 35% of the weight of
the Index and the three highest weighted components shall not
account for more than 65% of the weight of the Index; and that if
the Index fails to meet this requirement, the Exchange shall reduce
position limits to 8000 contracts on the Monday following expiration
of the farthest-out, then trading, non-LEAP series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Gold/Silver Index composed of sixteen companies continues to be
a prime index that provides exposure to the dynamic gold/silver sector.
When investors want information and investment opportunities specific
to the gold/silver sector they most often turn to the Index and the
XAU\SM\ options traded thereon.\15\ The Index has served as a leading
market indicator and XAU\SM\ options as a viable trading and investing
vehicle in respect of the gold/silver sector.\16\ Recognizing the
market-leading aspects of the Index, the Exchange is proposing a rule
change to increase to thirty the number of components in XAU\SM\ \17\
so that this narrow-based index may even more effectively represent
this market sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Another currently available investment product that
evaluates the gold sector (only) is the AMEX Gold BUGS Index.
    \16\ During 2010, XAU\SM\ options traded an average of 55,432
contracts per month and traded as much as 13,581 contracts in a day
(January 5, 2010). As of December 31, 2010, there were 3,787
contracts of open interest in XAU\SM\ options.
    \17\ A listing of the component securities in XAU\SM\ is
available at https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/weighting.aspx?IndexSymbol=XAU&menuIndex=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange submits that in the proposed expanded form the Index
would continue to meet the relevant Index Options Maintenance Standards
in subsection (c) of Rule 1009A for listing XAU\SM\ options.
Specifically, all the applicable index maintenance requirements in
subsection (c) applicable to options on narrow-based indexes would be
met with one exception. The singular exception is the number of
components. In particular, subsection (c)(2) of Rule 1009 indicates
that the total number of component securities in the index may not
increase or decrease by more than 33\1/3\% from the total number of
securities in the index at the time of its initial listing; adding
components to equal thirty is outside the (c)(2) parameter, and is the
reason why the Exchange is making the current filing.
Index Design and Index Composition
    Currently, the Index is calculated using a capitalization-weighted
index methodology. The value of the Index equals the aggregate value of
the Index share weights, also known as the Index Shares, of each of the
Index Securities (components) multiplied by each such security's Last
Sale Price, and divided by the divisor of the Index. The divisor serves
the purpose of scaling such aggregate index value to a lower order of
magnitude which is more desirable for reporting purposes. If trading in
an Index Security is halted on its primary listing market, the most
recent Last Sale Price for that security is used for all index
computations until trading on such market resumes. Likewise, the most
recent Last Sale Price is used if trading in a security is halted on
its primary listing market before the market is open.
    The modified capitalization-weighted methodology is expected to
retain, in general, the economic attributes of capitalization
weighting, while providing enhanced diversification. To accomplish
this, NASDAQ OMX, which maintains the Index, rebalances the Index
quarterly and adjusts the weighting of Index components.
    Index eligibility is limited to specific security types only. The
security types eligible for the Index include common stocks, ordinary
shares, ADRs, shares of beneficial interest or limited partnership
interests and tracking stocks. Security types not included in the Index
are closed-end funds, convertible debentures, exchange traded funds,
preferred stocks, rights, warrants, units and other derivative
securities.
    As of December 31, 2010, the following were characteristics of the
Index using a modified capitalization-weighting methodology:

--The total weighted capitalization of all components of the Index was
$354.60 billion;
--Regarding component capitalization, (a) the highest weighted
capitalization of a component was $56.55 billion (Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold Inc.), (b) the lowest weighted capitalization of a
component was $0.44 billion (Endeavour Silver Corp.), (c) the mean
capitalization of the components was $11.82 billion, and (d) the median
capitalization of the components was $5.11 billion;
--Regarding component price per share, (a) the highest price per share
of a component was $120.09 (Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.), (b)
the lowest price per share of a component was $6.94 (North American
Palladium Ltd.), (c) the mean price per share of the components was
$33.39, and (d) the median price per share of the components was
$24.62;
--Regarding component weightings, (a) the highest weighting of a
component was 8% (Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., Barrick Gold
Corporation, Southern Copper Corporation, Goldcorp Inc., Newmont Mining
Corporation), (b) the lowest weighting of a component was 0.27%
(Endeavour Silver Corp.), (c) the mean weighting of the components was
3.33%, (d) the median weighting of the components was 3.06%, and (e)
the total weighting of the top five highest weighted components was 40%
(Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., Barrick Gold Corporation,
Southern Copper Corporation, Goldcorp Inc., Newmont Mining
Corporation);
--Regarding component shares, (a) the most available shares of a
component was 1.13 billion shares (Kinross Gold Corporation), (b) the
least available shares of a component was 0.05 billion shares (Royal
Gold, Inc.), (c) the mean available shares of the components was 0.33
billion shares, and (d) the median available shares of the components
was 0.19 billion shares;
--Regarding the six-month average daily volumes (``ADVs'') of the
components, (a) the highest six-month ADV of a component was 11.00
million shares (Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.), (b) the lowest
six-month ADV of a component was 0.52 million shares (Royal Gold,
Inc.), (c) the mean six-month ADV of the components was 3.53 million
shares, (d) the median six-month ADVs of the components was 2.20
million shares, (e) the average of six-month ADVs of the five most
heavily traded components was 8.99 million shares (Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold Inc., Hecla Mining Company, Barrick Gold Corporation,
Yamana Gold, Inc., Silver Wheaton Corp.), and (f) 100% of the
components had a six-month ADV of at least 200,000; and
    --Regarding option eligibility, (a) 100% of the components were
options eligible, as measured by weighting, and (b) 100% of the
components were options eligible, as measured by number.
Index Calculation and Index Maintenance
    The Index is maintained by NASDAQ OMX and index levels are
calculated continuously, using the Last Sale Price for each component
stock in the Index. Index values are publicly disseminated at least
every fifteen seconds throughout the trading day through a major market
data vendor, namely NASDAQ OMX's index dissemination service. The
Exchange expects that such dissemination will continue through

one or more (NASDAQ OMX-owned or unrelated) major market data
vendors.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Rule 1009A(b)(12) states that should an underlying index be
maintained by a broker-dealer, however, the index must be calculated
by a third party who is not a broker-dealer, and the broker-dealer
will have to erect a ``Chinese Wall'' around its personnel who have
access to information concerning changes in and adjustments to the
index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appurtenant to review of the Index for purposes of rebalancing,
component securities are evaluated by NASDAQ OMX. In the event that an
Index Security no longer meets the Continued Security Eligibility
Criteria, it will be replaced with a security that is not currently in
the Index that meets all of the Initial Security Eligibility Criteria
and additional criteria which follows. Securities eligible for
inclusion will be ranked ascending by market value, current price and
percentage price change over the previous six months. The security with
the highest overall ranking will be added to the Index provided that
the Index then meets the following criteria: No single Index Security
is greater than 25% of the weight of the Index and the top 3 Index
Securities are not greater than 55% of the weight of the Index; no more
than 15% of the weight of the Index is composed of non-U.S. component
securities that are not subject to comprehensive surveillance
agreements.\19\ In the event that the highest-ranking security does not
permit the Index to meet the above criteria, the next highest-ranking
security will be selected and the Index criteria will again be applied
to determine eligibility. The process will continue until a qualifying
replacement security is selected.\20\ Component changes will be
publicly announced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 1009A(c), which refers to subsections (b)(6) and
(b)(9).
    \20\ Moreover, changes in the price and/or Index Shares driven
by corporate events such as stock dividends, stock splits, and
certain spin-offs and rights issuances will be adjusted on the ex-
date. If the change in total shares outstanding arising from other
corporate actions is greater than or equal to 10.0%, the change will
be made as soon as practicable. Otherwise, if the change in total
shares outstanding is less than 10%, then all such changes are
accumulated and made effective at one time on a quarterly basis
after the close of trading on the third Friday in each of March,
June, September, and December.
     In the case of a special cash dividend, a determination will be
made on an individual basis whether to make a change to the price of
an Index Security in accordance with its Index dividend policy. If
it is determined that a change will be made, it will become
effective on the ex-date and advance notification will be made.
    Ordinarily, whenever there is a change in Index Shares, a change
in an Index Security, or a change to the price of an Index Security
due to spin-offs, rights issuances, or special cash dividends, the
divisor is adjusted to ensure that there is no discontinuity in the
value of the Index, which might otherwise be caused by any such
change. All changes are announced in advance and will be reflected
in the Index prior to market open on the Index effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event a class of index options listed on the Exchange fails
to satisfy the maintenance listing standards, the Exchange shall not
open for trading any additional series of options of that class unless
such failure is determined by the Exchange not to be significant and
the Commission concurs in that determination, or unless the continued
listing of that class of index options has been approved by the
Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that, if the Index ceases to be maintained
or calculated, or if the Index values are not disseminated at least
every fifteen seconds by a widely available source, the Exchange will
promptly notify the Division of Trading and Markets of the Commission,
and the Exchange will not list any additional series for trading and
will limit all transactions in such options to closing transactions
only for the purpose of maintaining a fair and orderly market and
protecting investors.
Contract Specifications
    The contract specifications for the proposed expanded Index options
(updated regarding components and weighting methodology) are, as
previously noted, identical to the current narrow-based Index options
that are currently listed and traded on the Exchange.\22\ Options on
the Index are American style and P.M. cash-settled. The Exchange's
trading hours for index options (9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET), will apply to
options on XAU\SM\.\23\ Exchange rules that are applicable to the
trading of options on indexes will continue to apply to the trading of
options on XAU\SM\.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 5.
    \23\ See Rule 101.
    \24\ For trading rules applicable to trading index options, see
Rules 1000A et seq. For trading rules applicable to trading options
generally, see Rules 1000 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The strike price intervals for XAU\SM\ options contracts will
remain the same as those currently in use: $2.50 or greater if the
strike price is less than $200.\25\ The minimum increment size for
series trading below $3 will remain $0.05, and for series trading at or
above $3 will remain $0.10.\26\ The Exchange's margin rules will be
applicable.\27\ The Exchange will continue to list options on XAU\SM\
in up to three months from the March, June, September, December cycle
plus two additional near-term months (that is, as many as five months
at all times).\28\ The trading of XAU\SM\ options will continue to be
subject to the same rules that govern the trading of all of the
Exchange's index options, including sales practice rules, margin
requirements, and trading rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Rule 1101A(a). Rule 1101A generally indicates that
strike price intervals for index options may be $5.00, $2.50 and
$1.00.
    \26\ See Rule 1034(a). However, the rule indicates that certain
products (e.g. IWM options and Alpha Index options) may trade at
$0.01 minimum increments.
    \27\ See Rule 721 et seq.
    \28\ See Rule 1101A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surveillance and Capacity
    The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance
program in place for options traded on the Index and intends to apply
those same program procedures that it applies to the Exchange's current
XAU\SM\ options and other index options. Additionally, the Exchange is
a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'') under the
Intermarket Surveillance Group Agreement, dated June 20, 1994. ISG
members generally work together to coordinate surveillance and
investigative information sharing in the stock and options markets. In
addition, the major futures exchanges are affiliated members of the
ISG, which allows for the sharing of surveillance information for
potential intermarket trading abuses.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ A list of the current members and affiliate members of ISG
can be found at http://www.isgportal.org/isgportal/public/members.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity
to continue to support listing and trading XAU\SM\ options.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \30\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \31\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system. The Exchange
believes that the proposal to expand the XAU\SM\ index will allow the
Exchange to seamlessly continue listing this premiere index and options
thereon in a manner that even more effectively reflects the gold/silver
sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \31\ 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 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 either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

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-Phlx-2011-46 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-Phlx-2011-46. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-46 and should be
submitted on or before May 4, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8802 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P