United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Water

4304

EPA-823-R-13-001

April 2013

Revised Deletion Process

for the Site-Specific 

Recalculation Procedure

for Aquatic Life Criteria

EPA
ii

Revised Deletion Process for

the Site-Specific Recalculation Procedure

for Aquatic Life Criteria

April 2013

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology

Washington, DC
iii

Foreword

This guidance on deriving water quality criteria provides scientific recommendations to states 

and tribes authorized to establish water quality standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

Under the CWA, states and tribes are to establish water quality criteria to protect designated

uses. State and tribal decision makers retain the discretion to adopt appropriate approaches that 

differ from those recommended here. While this updated guidance constitutes United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientific recommendations regarding one possible 

approach for deriving site-specific criteria that protect aquatic life, this update does not substitute 

for the CWA or EPA’s regulations; nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally 

binding requirements on EPA, states, tribes, or the regulated community, and might not apply to 

a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA may change this guidance in the 

future, as new scientific information becomes available This document has been approved for 

publication by the Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use.

Acknowledgment

This document was prepared by Charles G. Delos, Office of Science and Technology, Office of 

Water. This was done in consultation with Charles E. Stephan, Midcontinent Ecology Division, 

Office of Research and Development, who devised the underlying concept of the approach and 

produced Appendix 2. The document was peer reviewed by Alex M. Barron, Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, Steven P. Canton, GEI Consultants, Inc., and Jerome M. 

Diamond, Tetra Tech, Inc. Submit questions to Charles Delos at: delos.charles@epa.gov .
1

Purpose

The Recalculation Procedure involves editing the composition of a Species Sensitivity 

Distribution of tested species used to derive a site-specific aquatic life criterion in order to allow 

it to better reflect the taxonomy of species that reside at the site. This document presents a 

revision of the Deletion Process of the Recalculation Procedure.

Background

U.S. EPA (1984) described three procedures that can be used to derive a site-specific aquatic life 

water quality criterion: (1) the Recalculation Procedure, a taxonomic composition adjustment, 

(2) the Indicator Species Procedure, a bioavailability adjustment now called the Water-Effect 

Ratio Procedure, and (3) the Resident Species Procedure, a little-used approach effectively 

superseded by combined application of the Recalculation and Water-Effect Ratio procedures.

The Recalculation Procedure is used to edit the taxonomic composition of the toxicity dataset 

used for the Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) upon which a site-specific criterion is based, 

in order to better match the assemblage that resides at the site. The Recalculation Procedure is 

intended to provide flexibility to States to derive site-specific criteria that best reflect the species 

that reside at a site.

The underlying premise of the Recalculation Procedure is that taxonomy has value in predicting 

sensitivity, such that a site-specific SSD can be adjusted to reflect the taxonomy of species that 

reside at a site. The core of the procedure is the Deletion Process, which involves removing 

tested species from the SSD. The recommended procedure allows deletion of nonresident tested 

species if and only if they are not appropriate surrogates of resident untested species – based on 

taxonomy.

The use of taxonomy, while reasonable and systematically straightforward, is not the only 

conceivable basis for weighing how well a tested species represents untested species at a site. 

Possibly a system could be developed using ecological traits: that is, morphological, behavioral, 

and functional characteristics of an organism. Although USGS (2013) offers an invertebrate trait 

database, and U.S. EPA (2013) suggests some uses, no system involving its use for site-specific 

criteria exists at this time.

Based on taxonomy, U.S. EPA (1994) provided the Recalculation Procedure with a step-by-step 

protocol for deciding which nonresident tested species to retain or delete. For any particular 

nonresident tested species, the decision process begins at the genus level: the species is either (a) 

deleted, (b) retained as a surrogate for resident untested species in the genus, or (c) a decision is 

postponed. If the decision is postponed, then the next higher taxonomic level is considered. For 

a nonresident tested species, this hierarchical process stops once the decision to delete or retain is 

made – that is, the decision to delete or retain is not reconsidered or reversed at a higher 

taxonomic level.
2

U.S EPA (1997) modified the procedure in response to issues raised about its behavior with a 

particular configuration of tested and resident species. Likewise, the current guidance has been 

prepared in response to apparent conflicts between the results of the step-by-step protocol 

applied to certain datasets, and the stated goals of the 1997 procedure. Although the 1997 

revision had corrected unintended behavior of the 1994 procedure at the genus and family levels, 

it did not eliminate the possibility that certain data configurations could produce unintended 

retention of inappropriate potential surrogates at the order, class, or phylum levels.

The purpose of this document is to update and supersede the guidance on applying the Deletion 

Process of the Recalculation Procedure presented in U.S. EPA (1984, 1994, and 1997). The 

principles underlying this revised procedure are identical to those applied at the genus and family 

level in the 1997 revision. It now extends those principles to the order, class, and phylum levels.

Concept of the Procedure

The concept of the Recalculation Procedure remains unchanged: to create a site-specific toxicity 

dataset (Species Sensitivity Distribution) that is appropriate for deriving a site-specific aquatic 

life criterion, by modifying the national toxicity dataset for the pollutant of concern by 

correcting, adding, and/or deleting test results. Deletion is based on taxonomic composition of 

the site under consideration.

Because some tested species might be needed to represent untested species that occur at the site, 

the deletion procedure does not provide for simplistic deletion of all species that do not occur at 

the site. Rather the concept is to consider which tested species are most closely related to those 

occurring at the site, and delete those for which another tested species would better represent the 

species occurring at the site.

The Deletion Process is designed to ensure that:

 Each species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum that occurs both at the site and in 

the national toxicity dataset is retained in the site-specific toxicity dataset.

 Each species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum that occurs at the site but not in the 

national toxicity dataset is represented in the site-specific dataset by at least one species 

most closely related to it from the national dataset.

The underlying principle of the Deletion Process has been and continues to be as follows:

1. Looking within a genus, are all of its resident species tested? (That is, are they in the 

national toxicity dataset?) If so, then delete the nonresident tested species in that genus. 

If not, retain them as surrogates.

2. Moving up to the family level, does every resident genus in a family contain at least one 

tested species? (That is, are all of its resident genera tested?) If so, then delete the tested 
3

species in the family’s nonresident genera. If not, retain them. (Note that this is not 

asking whether every resident species in the family is tested. Rather it asks whether 

every resident genus in the family appears in the national toxicity dataset.)

3. Moving up each subsequent level, to order, class, and phylum, the concept remains 

parallel. Does every resident family in an order contain at least one tested species? Does 

every resident order in a class contain at least one tested species? Does every resident 

class in a phylum contain at least one tested species? In each case, if so, delete the 

nonresident. If not, retain as surrogates.

It is at the order, class, and phylum levels that the exact wording of the 1997 step-by-step process 

did not match the underlying concept. This revision of the guidance corrects that problem.

Review of Several Key Provisions from Previous Guidance

Because the Deletion Process is taxonomy based, it is important that one taxonomic system be 

used consistently in the derivation of national and site-specific criteria. The system that U.S. 

EPA uses is the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS; www.itis.gov). However, the 

only ITIS taxonomic levels that are used by the Deletion Process are the traditional and 

universally recognized levels of species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum. (That is, 

subdivisions such as subclass, infraclass, and superorder are not used.)

Following the 1994 Recalculation Procedure guidance, the equivalent terms “resident” or “occur 

at the site” includes life stages and species that:

a. are usually present at the site,

b. are present at the site only seasonally due to migration,

c. are present at the site intermittently because they periodically return to or extend their 

ranges into the site,

d. were present at the site in the past, are not currently present at the site due to degraded 

conditions, but are expected to return to the site when conditions improve, or

e. are present in nearby bodies of water, are not currently present at the site due to degraded 

conditions, but are expected to be present at the site when conditions improve.

The terms “resident” or “occur at the site” do not include life stages and species that:

a. were once present at the site but cannot exist at the site now due to permanent alterations 

of the habitat or other conditions that are not likely to change within reasonable planning 

horizons, or
4

b. are still-water life stages or species that are found in a flowing-water site solely and 

exclusively because they are washed through the site by stream flow from a still-water 

site. 

The definition of the “site” is important when the Deletion Process is used. For example, the 

number of taxa that occur at the site will generally decrease as the size of the site decreases. 

However, if the site is defined to be very small, a permit limit might be controlled by a criterion 

that applies outside (e.g., downstream of) the site. Use of the Recalculation Procedure does not 

sidestep the need to protect downstream uses.

Resident “critical species” merit one special provision, per EPA (1994). A critical species is a 

resident species that (a) is commercially or recreationally important at the site, or (b) is listed as 

threatened or endangered under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, or (c) is a species for 

which there is firm evidence that its loss would yield an unacceptable impact on the site’s 

commercially or recreationally important species, endangered species, abundances of a variety of 

other species, or structure or function. The Deletion Process should not be undertaken unless 

toxicity data are available for at least one species in each class of aquatic plants or animals that 

contains a critical species. Thus for example, if the site has an amphibian that fits the 

designation of a critical species, the Deletion Process should not be undertaken unless toxicity 

data for a species in class Amphibia are available (possibly via new testing).

Although the scope of this update is limited – to fulfill a change that was intended by the U.S. 

EPA (1997) guidance – analysts experienced with application of the procedure have reported 

some other issues (ERG 2013). The comprehensiveness of the list of resident species is

influenced by the quality of the biological survey of the site water body and of comparable water 

bodies. Although greater or lesser comprehensiveness does not inherently bias a criterion 

recalculation either upward or downward, lesser comprehensiveness increases the uncertainty in 

the appropriateness of the recalculated criterion. Uncertainties in the process of identifying 

species occurring at the site have been reported as impediments to the acceptance of 

recalculations proposed to states (ERG 2013). It is thus important to fully document the effort 

put into compiling the list of resident species.

ERG (2013) also reported issues about sites having limited diversity – for example, sites that 

cannot support fish. For deriving national criteria, tests with three families of fish are called for 

(unless an amphibian is substituted for one of them). For site-specific recalculations, the 

underlying concept of having tests for a diversity of species is more fundamental than having 

tests for particular taxonomic groups that may be irrelevant to the site.
5

Explanatory Example of the Deletion Process

The underlying concept may be illustrated through a hypothetical example. In the following 

simple case, the class Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes) has only four species to consider: two 

are resident at the site, and three are tested.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Resident? Tested? Retain? Why?

Chord. Actinopterygii Perciformes Percidae Etheostoma nigrum Yes No No 1

Chord. Actinopterygii Perciformes Centrarchidae Lepomis cyanellus Yes Yes Yes 2

Chord. Actinopterygii Perciformes Moronidae Morone saxatilis No Yes Yes 3

Chord. Actinopterygii Salmoniformes Salmonidae Oncorhynchus mykiss No Yes No 4

(1) The one species in family Percidae, although resident, is not tested and so obviously 

cannot be in the site-specific toxicity dataset.

(2) The one species in family Centrarchidae is both resident and tested and so is retained in 

the site-specific dataset.

(3) The one species in family Moronidae is not resident but is tested. The question is 

whether it should be retained as a surrogate. Here order Perciformes has two resident 

families, Percidae and Centrarchidae. Of these two only Centrarchidae is tested. 

Consequently, family Moronidae is retained so that it can serve along with Centrarchidae

as surrogates equally closely related to the untested resident family Percidae.

(4) Order Salmoniformes is not resident but has a tested species. Again the question is 

whether to retain it as a surrogate. In this case it is deleted because the site has no resident 

untested fish order needing a surrogate. That is, the only resident order, Perciformes, is 

tested (that is, Perciformes contains at least one tested species), making it unnecessary for 

anything in Salmoniformes to serve as a surrogate. In contrast, if the dataset had 

contained an untested third order, say Cypriniformes, essentially equally closely related 

to the tested Perciformes and Salmoniformes, then the tested Salmoniformes would be 

retained to share the surrogacy.

The Deletion Process itself is presented in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. These two 

appendices represent two different ways of setting forth the procedure. Nevertheless, they 

are logically equivalent such that they yield identical results. Appendix 3 provides a number 

of examples illustrating the results of applying the Deletion Process.
6

References

Eastern Research Group. 2013. External Peer Review Comments on the Revised Deletion 

Process for the Recalculation Procedure. U.S. EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-021,Work 

Assignment 0-43.

U.S. EPA. 1984. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-Specific Water Quality 

Criteria by Modifying National Criteria. EPA-600/3-84-099 or PB85-121101. National 

Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the 

Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. EPA 822/R-85-100 or PB85-227049. 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/index.cfm#guide

U.S. EPA. 1994. Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for 

Metals. Appendix B. EPA-823-B-94-001 or PB94-140951. National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA.

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2002_06_11_standards_handbook_ha

ndbookappxL.pdf

U.S. EPA. 1997. Modifications to Guidance Site-Specific Criteria. (Cover letter by J. Wiltse). 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. (Section 2 titled “A Change in the Recalculation Procedure” 

and Section 3 titled “Optional Consideration of Life Stage When the Recalculation Procedure is 

Used”) 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2003_08_06_standards_modif-intwer.pdf

U.S. EPA. 2013. CADDIS Volume 4: Data Analysis; Advanced Analyses; Analyzing Trait 

Data. Accessed 2013-03-01. http://www.epa.gov/caddis/da_advanced_4.html

USGS. 2013. A Database of Lotic Invertebrate Traits for North America. Accessed 2013-03-01. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/ds187/
7

Appendix 1. Shorter Statement of the Deletion Process

This version is identical to the EPA 1997 guidance in Steps 1 and 2, and extends the concept of 

Steps 1 and 2 (genus and family) to Steps 3, 4, and 5 (order, class, and phylum).

In the (possibly updated) national toxicity dataset, circle each species that either satisfies the 

definition of “occur at the site”. Then use the following step-wise process to determine which of 

the uncircled (i.e., nonresident) species are to be deleted. 

1. Does a species in the genus occur at the site?

If “No”, go to step 2.

If “Yes”, are there one or more species in the genus that occur at the site but are not in 

the national toxicity dataset?

If “No”, delete the uncircled species.*

If “Yes”, retain the uncircled species.*

2. Does a species in the family occur at the site?

If “No”, go to step 3.

If “Yes”, are there one or more genera in the family that occur at the site but are not in 

the national toxicity dataset?

If “No”, delete the uncircled species.*

If “Yes”, retain the uncircled species.*

3. Does a species in the order occur at the site?

If “No”, go to step 4.

If “Yes”, are there one or more families in the order that occur at the site but are not in 

the national toxicity dataset?

If “No”, delete the uncircled species.*

If “Yes”, retain the uncircled species.*

4. Does a species in the class occur at the site?

If “No”, go to step 5.

If “Yes”, are there one or more orders in the class that occur at the site but are not in the 

national toxicity dataset?

If “No”, delete the uncircled species.*

If “Yes”, retain the uncircled species.*

5. Does a species in the phylum occur at the site?

If “No”, delete the uncircled species.*

If “Yes”, are there one or more classes in the phylum that occur at the site but are not in 

the national toxicity dataset?

If “No”, delete the uncircled species.*

If “Yes”, retain the uncircled species.*

* = Continue the deletion process by starting at step 1 for another uncircled species unless all 

uncircled species in the national toxicity dataset have been addressed.
8

Appendix 2. Longer Statement of the Deletion Process

In contrast to the Appendix 1 version, which operates on the list of tested species, comparing it 

to the list of resident species, this version operates on a single combined list. Use of a single list

was found to have certain advantages, which furthered the development of an automated 

spreadsheet for determining retention or deletion of tested species. Appendices 1 and 2 are 

intended to yield identical results.

Steps A through J are performed sequentially so that the appropriate entry is made in the sitespecific toxicity dataset column for each species; the entry indicates whether the species is or is 

not included in the site-specific toxicity dataset. This version of the Deletion Process is 

organized so that, beginning with Step D, each species that does not have an entry in the sitespecific toxicity dataset column is addressed at the genus level before any species is addressed at 

the family level. Then, the order, class, and phylum taxonomic levels are addressed sequentially. 

The number of species that need to be addressed decreases as higher and higher taxonomic levels 

are addressed.

Step A: Make a table that lists all of the species in the (possibly modified) national toxicity 

dataset, all of the species that occur at the site, and all surrogates that are used for 

critical species at the site in taxonomic order by species, genus, family, order, class, and 

phylum using the current version of ITIS. If a surrogate species is listed in the table, the 

species that it is a surrogate for should not be listed in the table. Fill in each column for 

each species, except do not put anything in the last column on the right, which is titled 

“In site-specific toxicity dataset?”

Step B: For each species that has a “No” in the national toxicity dataset column, enter “N-1” in 

the site-specific toxicity dataset column.

1. N = “No” and means that the species is not in the site-specific toxicity database.

Step C: For each species that has a “Yes” in the “Occur at the site?” column and a “Yes” in the 

national toxicity dataset column, enter “Y-2” in the site-specific toxicity dataset 

column.

Each species that does not yet have an entry in the site-specific toxicity dataset column has a 

“No” in the “Occur at the site?” column and a “Yes” in the national toxicity dataset column.

Step D: Look down the column titled “Genus” and every time a genus name appears more than 

once, draw a circle around all of the multiple entries for that one genus. The species in 

the circled genera are the only species that will be addressed in this Step D. For each 

species that is in a circled genus and does not already have an entry in the site-specific 

toxicity dataset column, look at the circled genus that that species is in and do one of the 

following regarding the site-specific toxicity dataset column:

1. Enter “N-3” if all of the species in that genus that occur at the site are already in the 

site-specific toxicity dataset.

2. Enter “Y-4” if one or more of the species in that genus that occur at the site are not 

in the site-specific toxicity dataset.
9

This step will not result in an entry for tested species in genera having no species 

occurring at the site.

Step E: Look down the column titled “Family” and every time a family name appears more than 

once, draw a circle around all of the multiple entries for that one family. The species in 

the circled families are the only species that will be addressed in this Step E. For each 

species that is in a circled family and does not already have an entry in the site-specific 

toxicity dataset column, look at the circled family that that species is in and do one of 

the following regarding the site-specific toxicity dataset column:

1. Enter “N-5” if all of the genera in that family that occur at the site are already 

represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.

2. Enter “Y-6” if one or more of the genera in that family that occur at the site are not 

represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.

This step will not result in an entry for tested species in families having no species 

occurring at the site.

Step F: Look down the column titled “Order” and every time an order name appears more than 

once, draw a circle around all of the multiple entries for that one order. The species in 

the circled orders are the only species that will be addressed in this Step F. For each 

species that is in a circled order and does not already have an entry in the site-specific 

toxicity dataset column, look at the circled order that that species is in and do one of the 

following regarding the site-specific toxicity dataset column:

1. Enter “N-7” if all of the families in that order that occur at the site are already 

represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.

2. Enter “Y-8” if one or more of the families in that order that occur at the site are not 

represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.

This step will not result in an entry for tested species in orders having no species 

occurring at the site.

Step G: Look down the column titled “Class” and every time a class name appears more than 

once, draw a circle around all of the multiple entries for that one class. The species in 

the circled classes are the only species that will be addressed in this Step G. For each 

species that is in a circled class and does not already have an entry in the site-specific 

toxicity dataset column, look at the circled class that that species is in and do one of the 

following regarding the site-specific toxicity dataset column:

1. Enter “N-9” if all of the orders in that class that occur at the site are already 

represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.

2. Enter “Y-10” if one or more of the orders in that class that occur at the site are not 

represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.

This step will not result in an entry for tested species in classes having no species 

occurring at the site.

Step H: Look down the column titled “Phylum” and every time a phylum name appears more 

than once, draw a circle around all of the multiple entries for that one phylum. The 

species in the circled phyla are the only species that will be addressed in this Step H. 

For each species that is in a circled phylum and does not already have an entry in the 
10

site-specific toxicity dataset column, look at the circled phylum that that species is in 

and do one of the following regarding the site-specific toxicity dataset column:

1. Enter “N-11” if all of the classes in that phylum that occur at the site are already

represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.

2. Enter “Y-12” if one or more of the classes in that phylum that occur at the site are 

not represented in the site-specific toxicity dataset.

Step I: For each species for which no entry has been made in the site-specific toxicity dataset 

column, enter “N-13” because the phylum does not occur at the site.

Aspects of a completed table that are easy to review.

a. Every “N” should have an odd number after it.

b. Every “Y” should have an even number after it.

c. Every species that has “No” in the national toxicity database column should have “N-1” in 

the site-specific database column.

d. Every species that has “Y-2” in the site-specific toxicity database column should have “Yes” 

in the “Occur at the site?” column and in the national toxicity dataset column.
11

Appendix 3. Table of Hypothetical Examples Illustrating Results of the Deletion Process

The hypothetical input data constitute all but the last column (Phyla Pa – Pi, Classes Ca – Cq, ..., 

Species Sa – Sbk), as would be arranged for the procedure’s “Longer Statement” (Appendix 2). 

The last column shows the result of applying the Deletion Process; its numeric codes correspond 

to those of Appendix 2, thereby indicating the step at which the decision was made to include 

(Y) or not include (N) the species in the site-specific Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD). 

The table is intended to represent numerous individual examples rather than a single complete 

dataset. It begins by examining behavior at the genus through family levels. Later portions of 

the table illustrate decisions made at higher taxonomic levels. The table illustrates various cases 

where tested species that do not occur at the site are either retained as surrogates for untested 

species that do occur at the site, or are deleted as less representative than the tested species 

retained.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species

Occurs at 

the site?

In national 

SSD?

Include in 

site SSD?

Pa Ca Oa Fa Ga Sa Yes Yes Y-2

Pa Ca Oa Fb Gb Sb Yes No N-1

Pa Ca Oa Fb Gb Sc Yes No N-1

Pa Ca Oa Fc Gc Sd No Yes N-3

Pa Ca Oa Fc Gc Se Yes Yes Y-2

Pa Ca Oa Fd Gd Sf Yes No N-1

Pa Ca Oa Fd Gd Sg No Yes Y-4

Pa Ca Oa Fd Gd Sh Yes Yes Y-2

Pa Ca Oa Fe Ge Si No Yes Y-4

Pa Ca Oa Fe Ge Sj Yes No N-1

Pa Ca Oa Fe Ge Sk No Yes Y-4

Pa Ca Oa Fe Ge Sl Yes No N-1

Pa Ca Oa Ff Gf Sm No Yes N-3

Pa Ca Oa Ff Gf Sn Yes Yes Y-2

Pa Ca Oa Ff Gf So No Yes N-3

Pa Ca Oa Ff Gf Sp No Yes N-3

Pa Ca Oa Fg Gg Sq Yes Yes Y-2

Pa Ca Oa Fg Gg Sr No Yes N-3

Pa Ca Oa Fg Gh Ss Yes No N-1

Pa Ca Oa Fg Gi St No Yes Y-6

Pa Ca Oa Fh Gj Su No Yes N-5

Pa Ca Oa Fh Gk Sv No Yes N-5

Pa Ca Oa Fh Gl Sw Yes Yes Y-2

Pa Ca Oa Fi Gm Sx No Yes Y-6

Pa Ca Oa Fi Gn Sy No Yes Y-6

Pa Ca Oa Fi Go Sz Yes No N-1
12

Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species

Occurs at 

the site?

In national 

SSD?

Include in 

site SSD?

Pb Cb Ob Fj Gp Saa Yes No N-1

Pb Cc Oc Fk Gq Sab No Yes Y-12

Pc Cd Od Fl Gr Sac No Yes N-13

Pd Ce Oe Fm Gs Sad No Yes N-11

Pd Cf Of Fn Gt Sae Yes Yes Y-2

Pd Cf Of Fn Gu Saf Yes No N-1

Pd Cf Of Fn Gu Sag No Yes Y-4

Pd Cf Of Fn Gu Sah No Yes Y-4

Pd Cf Of Fn Gv Sai Yes Yes Y-2

Pd Cf Of Fn Gv Saj No Yes N-3

Pd Cf Of Fn Gw Sak No Yes N-5

Pd Cf Of Fo Gx Sal Yes No N-1

Pd Cf Of Fo Gy Sam No Yes Y-6

Pd Cf Og Fp Gz San Yes No N-1

Pd Cf Og Fq Gaa Sao No Yes Y-8

Pd Cf Oh Fr Gab Sap Yes Yes Y-2

Pd Cf Oh Fr Gab Saq Yes No N-1

Pd Cf Oh Fr Gab Sar No Yes Y-4

Pd Cf Oh Fs Gac Sas No Yes N-7

Pd Cg Oi Ft Gad Sat Yes No N-1

Pd Cg Oj Fu Gae Sau No Yes Y-10

Pe Ch Ok Fv Gaf Sav Yes Yes Y-2

Pe Ci Ol Fw Gag Saw No Yes N-11

Pf Cj Om Fx Gah Sax Yes Yes Y-2

Pf Cj On Fy Gai Say No Yes N-9

Pg Ck Oo Fz Gaj Saz Yes Yes Y-2

Pg Ck Oo Fz Gaj Sba No Yes N-3

Pg Ck Oo Fz Gak Sbb No Yes N-5

Pg Ck Op Faa Gal Sbc No Yes N-9

Pg Cl Oq Fab Gam Sbd No Yes Y-12

Pg Cm Or Fac Gan Sbe Yes No N-1

Ph Cn Os Fad Gao Sbf No Yes Y-12

Ph Cn Os Fad Gao Sbg No Yes Y-12

Ph Cn Os Fad Gap Sbh No Yes Y-12

Ph Co Ot Fae Gaq Sbi Yes No N-1

Pi Cp Ou Faf Gar Sbj No Yes N-13

Pi Cq Ov Fag Gas Sbk No No N-1