[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 115 (Friday, June 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27703-27704]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12466]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9963-24-OA]

Notification of a Public Teleconference and Public Meeting of the
Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented
for the Review of EPA's Draft Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) and
tert-Butyl Alcohol (tert-butanol; tBA) Assessments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference and a public
face-to-face meeting of the SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee
augmented for the review of two EPA draft assessments: Toxicological
Review for Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) (External Review Draft,
dated May 2017); and Toxicological Review of tert-Butyl Alcohol (tert-
butanol or tBA) (External Review Draft, dated May 2017) (CAAC augmented
for ETBE/tBA Panel). A public teleconference will be held to learn
about the development of the two EPA draft assessments and to discuss
draft charge questions. A face-to-face meeting will be held to conduct
a peer review of these assessments.

DATES: The public teleconference will be held on Tuesday, July 11,
2017, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time). The public face-to-face
meeting will be held from Tuesday, August 15, 2017 through Thursday,
August 17, 2017, from approximately 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., (Eastern Time)
daily.

ADDRESSES: The public teleconference will be held by telephone only.
The public face-to-face meeting will be held at the Residence Inn
Arlington Capital View, 2850 S. Potomac Ave., Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning this meeting notice may contact Dr.
Shaunta Hill-Hammond, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via phone at
(202) 564-3343, or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General
information about the SAB, as well as updates concerning the meeting
announced in this notice, may be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.
    Technical Contact for EPA's Draft Reports: For information
concerning the EPA draft assessments, please contact James Avery, phone
(703) 347-8668 or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA),
codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and
technical advice to the Administrator on the scientific and technical
basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal
Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is
hereby given that the SAB CAAC augmented for ETBE and tBA panel will
hold a public teleconference and a public face-to-face meeting. The
purpose of the teleconference is to learn about the development of the
two EPA draft assessments on ETBE and tBA, and to discuss the draft
charge questions. The purpose of the face-to-face meeting is to conduct
a peer review of these two assessments.
    In response to EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
request that the SAB conduct a peer review of two EPA draft
assessments: (1) Toxicological Review of Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
(ETBE) and (2) Toxicological Review for tert-Butyl Alcohol (tert-
butanol or tBA), the EPA SAB Staff Office augmented the SAB CAAC with
subject matter experts, to provide advice to the Administrator through
the chartered SAB regarding

these assessments. The SAB and the CAAC augmented for ETBE and tBA
panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB
Staff Office procedural policies.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting(s), the
review documents, meeting agendas and other supporting materials (if
applicable) will be accessible on the meeting page corresponding to
each chemical assessment on the SAB Web site (http://www.epa.gov/sab).
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA.
Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the
EPA's charge, meeting materials, or the group providing advice. Input
from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides
specific scientific or technical information or analysis for the SAB to
consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical
information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should
follow the instructions below to submit comments.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting to
make an oral presentation will be limited to three minutes during a
public teleconference and five minutes during a face-to-face meeting.
Interested parties wishing to provide comments should contact Dr. Hill-
Hammond (preferably via email), at the contact information noted above
by June 30, 2017, to be placed on the list of public speakers for the
teleconference and by August 8, 2017, to be placed on the list of
public speakers for the face-to-face meeting.
    Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout
the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by SAB members,
statements should be supplied to the DFO (preferably via email) at the
contact information noted above by June 30, 2017, for the
teleconference meeting and by August 8, 2017, for the face-to-face
meeting. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written
comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference.
Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each
document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with
signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that
their personal contact information, if included in any written
comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will
not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Hill-Hammond at the
phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least ten days
prior to the meeting, to give the EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

    Dated: May 22, 2017.
Khanna Johnston,
Acting Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2017-12466 Filed 6-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


K:\ 0154 03 009\ co res cost memo 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Rhea Jones, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS ( C539 03)

FROM: Mike Heaney, Eastern Research Group ( ERG), Morrisville DATE: August 16, 2005 SUBJECT: Estimating the Cost of NESHAP Revisions for Co residential Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities 1.0 INTRODUCTION This memorandum documents how costs and emission impacts were estimated for perchloroethylene ( PCE) dry cleaners located in the same building as a residence ( i. e.

coresidential facilities). This cost analysis supports a review and residual risk analysis of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for PCE Dry Cleaners.

The option evaluated in this memorandum is a prohibition on any new PCE dry cleaning machines in a co residential facility. Existing PCE dry cleaning machines in co residential facilities could continue to operate but could be replaced only by a machine using another solvent. Because most PCE dry cleaning machines have a useful life of 10 to 15 years, this requirement would amount to a gradual phase out of PCE dry cleaning in buildings with residences.

We have estimated that approximately 1,300 co residential dry cleaning facilities with machines using PCE are currently operating ( ERG, 2005). Of these co residential sources, 900 ( 70%) are in New York City, 100 ( 8%) are in the rest of New York State, and 57 ( 4%) are in the [ San Francisco] Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD). For the remaining State and Local jurisdictions in the country, we assumed that 1% of all dry cleaners are coresidential This percentage is based on the composite average from the following seven States for which data on the number of co residential facilities are available:

  California ( excluding BAAQMD) K:\ 0154 03 009\ co res cost memo 2   Delaware   Maine   Michigan   North Carolina   Rhode Island   Washington 2.0 COST ESTIMATION METHOD 2.1 Cost Per Facility This cost estimate is based on the assumption that co residential facilities would replace their PCE machine, at the end of its useful life, with an alternative solvent machine. The primary cost of this option is the additional cost of alternative solvent machines compared to PCE machines. Among the alternative solvent technologies, synthetic hydrocarbons, such as DF

2000TM and EcoSolv ® , have the lowest capital and operating costs ( CARB, 2005). The net operating cost for hydrocarbon machines is less than 3% higher than that of PCE machines ( CARB, 2005), so operating costs were assumed to be equal. The additional capital cost of a hydrocarbon machine compared to a new PCE machine is based on the estimates summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Incremental Capital Cost of a New Hydrocarbon Machine Relative to a PCE Machine Installed cost of hydrocarbon machine ( 50 lb capacity) $ 60,500 Installed cost of PCE machine with secondary controls ( 40 lb capacity)   $ 35,600 Cost difference: $ 24,900 Improvements to fire protection and sprinkler systems +$ 8,000 Additional cost per facility: $ 32,900 Capital costs were based on machine capacities of 40 pounds for PCE and 50 pounds for hydrocarbons, because the longer cycle times of hydrocarbon machines require a larger capacity per load to attain the same overall throughput. The median capacity for area source PCE machines is 40 pounds ( CARB, 2005). Typically, owners replacing a PCE machine with a hydrocarbon machine will purchase one with a slightly larger capacity ( Lawson, 2005). The frame of reference for the cost comparison was a new PCE machine with secondary controls ( i. e.

a carbon adsorber and refrigerated condenser) because secondary controls are part of the option proposed for all area sources.

Installing a hydrocarbon machine often requires improvements to fire protection and sprinkler systems because synthetic hydrocarbons have a flash point of approximately 147 ° F, K:\ 0154 03 009\ co res cost memo 3 which makes them a National Fire Protection Association Class IIIA solvent. Several other common alternative solvents, including GreenEarth, are also Class IIIA solvents. Nonflammable alternatives such as wetcleaning and carbon dioxide are more costly and have a steep learning curve. The extent of fire protection required for Class IIIA solvents varies widely depending on local fire codes and the extent of the sprinkler system in place. New York City, home to 70% of all co residential cleaners, imposes particularly demanding fire protection requirements. Less than 0.5% of the dry cleaning machines in New York City use hydrocarbons because of the difficulty of getting approval from the City ( Nealis, 2005). In some cases, the estimated cost of expanding the sprinkler system can be more than the hydrocarbon machine itself.

The additional capital cost of a hydrocarbon machine relative to a PCE machine with secondary controls was converted to an annualized cost using the following factor:

Capital Recovery Factor = i( 1 + i) n ( 1 + i) n  1 i = interest rate ( 7%) n = dry cleaning machine life of 15 years Price quotations for nine PCE machines and nine hydrocarbon machines were obtained from equipment vendors. The quotes were for machines ranging in capacity from 35 to 75 pounds and were normalized to 40 pounds for PCE machines and 50 pounds for hydrocarbon machines.

Installation costs were included in the vendor quotations for about half the machines. For the remainder, installation costs were estimated to be $ 2,800.

3.0 REPLACEMENT RATE Based on an expected useful life of fifteen years, we estimated that one fifteenth ( 6.7%)

of existing co residential PCE machines are retired each year ( i. e. 87 machines per year).

Consistent with EPA Emission Standards Division guidance, we considered only costs incurred by facilities affected within the first five years after the rule takes effect. Therefore, about 33%

( 6.7% per year for five years) of existing machines were estimated to be affected by this proposed new source requirement.

New dry cleaning facilities and dry cleaning facilities that relocate will also be affected by this option. The fraction of new and relocated dry cleaning facilities opening in co residential K:\ 0154 03 009\ co res cost memo 4 facilities is believed to be lower than the fraction of existing dry cleaning facilities that are coresidential We estimated that the rate of new and relocated dry cleaning facilities opening in coresidential facilities is equal to the rate of closure of existing co residential. Accordingly, the estimated number of affected co residential sources ( 435 over five years) was not adjusted to account for new, relocated, or closed facilities.

4.0 PCE EMISSION REDUCTIONS PCE emission reduction was estimated in the same manner as for all area sources   on the basis of mileage estimates ( ERG, 2005b). The frame of reference for emission reductions is a PCE machine with enhanced LDAR and secondary controls because enhanced LDAR and secondary controls are part of the option proposed for all new area sources. PCE emissions in co residential sources were estimated to be the same as in an average size area source: 0.22 tons per year. Replacing a PCE machine with a hydrocarbon machine would eliminate PCE emissions from a source. The total national emissions reduction would be 97 tons per year by the fifth year after implementation of this option.

5.0 NATIONAL COST IMPACTS Table 2 shows the costs, emissions reductions, and the incremental cost effectiveness for the option of no new co residential sources. Cost effectiveness is expressed as cost per ton of PCE reduced. The cost effectiveness remains constant independent of the rate or number of machines replaced. Because this estimate considers only facilities affected within the first five years after implementation, only 435 facilities ( 33% of the total number of co residential sources) would be affected.

Table 2. Fifth Year National Cost Impacts for Phase out of Co Residential Dry Cleaners Option Number of Affected Facilities Capital Cost ($ MM) Net Annualized Cost ($ MM) Incremental Emission Reduction ( tons/ year) Incremental Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) No new co residential sources 435 14 1.6 97 16,200 K:\ 0154 03 009\ co res cost memo 5 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board. " California Dry Cleaning Industry Technical Assessment Report". August 2005.

Eastern Research Group, Inc. Memorandum to Rhea Jones: " Number of Co residential Area Source Dry Cleaners". May 16, 2005a.

Eastern Research Group, Inc. Memorandum to Rhea Jones: " Estimating the Cost of Regulatory Options for Area Source Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities". August %%%, 2005b.

Lawson, Kevin, Tri State Laundry Equipment Co. Personal Communication with Mike Heaney. Subject: Dry Cleaning Machine Sales Trends. May 19, 2005.

Nealis, Nora, National Cleaners Association. Personal Communication with Mike Heaney. Subject: Hydrocarbon Machines in New York City. June 21, 2005.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 63813]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25517]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR13-1-000]

Tesoro High Plains Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Request for
Temporary Waiver of Tariff Filing and Reporting Requirements

    On October 9, 2012 Tesoro High Plains Pipeline Company, LLC (THPP)
filed a Request for a Temporary Waiver of Tariff Filing and Reporting
Requirements. THPP requests that the Commission grant a temporary
waiver from the tariff filing and reporting requirements of sections 6
and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act for the sections of its pipeline
connecting the Saddle Butte Pipeline, LLC and Arrow Midstream Holdings,
LLC gathering systems to the Johnson's Corner destination point on the
THPP mainline. The sections of pipeline for which the temporary
exemption is requested will be owned by THPP, and all crude oil shipped
on these portions of the THPP pipeline system will be owned entirely by
THPP's affiliates.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceedings
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must
serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings
initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or
before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than
the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, October 22, 2012.

    Dated: October 11, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25517 Filed 10-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44177-44178]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Investment Company Act of 1940; Release No. 31719/July 20, 2015;
Order under Sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Investment Company Act of
1940

    In the Matter of: Cash Trust Series, Inc., Federated Adjustable
Rate Securities Fund, Federated Core Trust, Federated Core Trust II,
L.P., Federated Core Trust III, Federated Enhanced Treasury Income
Fund, Federated Equity Funds, Federated Equity Income Fund, Inc.,
Federated Fixed Income Securities, Inc., Federated Global Allocation
Fund, Federated Government Income Securities, Inc., Federated
Government Income Trust, Federated High Income Bond Fund, Inc.,
Federated High Yield Trust, Federated Income Securities Trust,
Federated Index Trust, Federated Institutional Trust, Federated
Insurance Series, Federated International Series, Inc., Federated
Investment Series Funds, Inc., Federated MDT Series, Federated MDT
Stock Trust, Federated Managed Pool Series, Federated Municipal
Securities Fund, Inc., Federated Municipal Securities Income Trust,
Federated Premier Intermediate Municipal Income Fund, Federated
Premier Municipal Income Fund, Federated Short-Intermediate Duration
Municipal Trust, Federated Total Return Government Bond Fund,
Federated Total Return Series, Inc., Federated U.S. Government
Securities Fund: 1-3 Years, Federated U.S. Government Securities
Fund: 2-5 Years, Federated World Investment Series, Inc.,
Intermediate Municipal Trust, Edward Jones Money Market Fund, Money
Market Obligations Trust, Federated Advisory Services Company,
Federated Equity Management Company of Pennsylvania, Federated
Global Investment Management Corp., Federated Investment Counseling,
Federated Investment Management Company, Federated MDTA LLC,
Passport Research, Ltd., Federated Securities Corp., c/o Peter
Germain, Federated Investors, Inc., Federated Investors Tower, 1001
Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3779, (File No. 812-1385-47).

    Cash Trust Series, Inc., et al. filed an application on March 1,
2011 and amendments to the application on August 29, 2011, July 3,
2012, December 7, 2012, August 29, 2013, June 15, 2015 and June 22,
2015, requesting an order

under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
(the ``Act'') exempting applicants from section 17(a) of the Act. The
order permits certain registered management investment companies to
engage in certain primary and secondary market transactions in fixed-
income securities on a principal basis with certain broker-dealers and
banks that are affiliated persons of the registered management
investment companies solely by virtue of non-controlling ownership
interests in such investment companies.
    On June 24, 2015, a notice of the filing of the application was
issued (Investment Company Act Release No. 31697). The notice gave
interested persons an opportunity to request a hearing and stated that
an order granting the application would be issued unless a hearing was
ordered. No request for a hearing has been filed, and the Commission
has not ordered a hearing.
    The matter has been considered and it is found, on the basis of the
information set forth in the application, as amended, that granting the
requested exemption is appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
    It is also found that the terms of the proposed transactions,
including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and
fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person
concerned, and that the proposed transactions are consistent with the
policy of each registered investment company concerned and with the
general purposes of the Act.
    Accordingly,
    It is ordered, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act, that the
relief requested by Cash Trust Series Inc., et al. (File No. 812-13875-
47) is granted, effective immediately, subject to the conditions
contained in the application, as amended.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18127 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 57561-57562]
[DOCID:fr10oc07-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

October 3, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP00-404-021, RP07-330-003, RP07-616-001.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits Fourth Revised
Sheet 260A et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071003-0013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-312-170.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits a gas
transportation agreement pursuant to their Rate Schedule FT-A, a Pre-
Arranged Rate Letter dated 8/29/07.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071003-0011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-15-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp submits Fiftieth
Revised Sheet 27 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1,
effective 10/1/07.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071002-0230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-16-000.
    Applicants: ANR Storage Company.
    Description: ANR Storage Co submits Fourth Revised Sheet 0 et al to
FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be effective 11/1/07.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071002-0229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-17-000.
    Applicants: Blue Lake Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Blue Lake Gas Storage Co submits Second Revised Sheet
0 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be effective 11/
1/07.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071002-0231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-18-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America submits a
report of the refunds of penalty revenues for the period of 1/1/07
through 6/30/27.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071003-0012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling

link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-19866 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 124 (Friday, June 26, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38317-38319]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13526]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0188; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes J-6, Q-68, V-5, V-
49, V-243, and T-325 in the Vicinity of Bowling Green, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Jet Route J-6, VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airways V-5, V-49, and V-243, and area navigation (RNAV)
routes Q-68 and T-325 in the vicinity of Bowling Green, KY. These
amendments are necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR
portion of the Bowling Green, KY, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC)
navigation aid (NAVAID). The Bowling Green VOR is being decommissioned
in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, September 10, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve
the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket
No. FAA-2020-0188 in the Federal Register (85 FR 16585; March 24,
2020), amending Jet Route J-6, VOR Federal airways V-5, V-49, and V-
243, and RNAV routes Q-68 and T-325 in the vicinity of Bowling Green,
KY. The amendments were necessary due to the planned decommissioning of
the VOR portion of the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC. Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.
    Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004, RNAV Q-routes are
published in paragraph 2006, VOR Federal airways are published in
paragraph 6010(a), and RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of
FAA Order 7400.11D,

dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this
document will be subsequently published in the Order.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 to modify Jet Route J-6, VOR Federal airways V-5, V-49, and V-
243, and RNAV routes Q-68 and T-325. The planned decommissioning of the
VOR portion of the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC has made these amendments
necessary. This rule also corrects the state listed for the Choo Choo
VORTAC, located in Chattanooga, TN, from ``GA'' to ``TN'' in the V-5
and V-243 descriptions. The ATS route amendments are described below.
    J-6: J-6 extends between the Salinas, CA, VORTAC and the Albany,
NY, VORTAC. The route segment between the Little Rock, AR, VORTAC and
the Charleston, WV, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) is
removed. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as
charted.
    Q-68: Q-68 extends between the Charleston, WV, VOR/DME and the
OTTTO, VA, waypoint located near the Linden, VA, VORTAC. The route is
extended westward from the Charleston, WV, VOR/DME to the LITTR, AR,
waypoint established near the Little Rock, AR, VORTAC. The unaffected
portions of the existing route remain as charted.
    V-5: V-5 extends between the Pecan, GA, VOR/DME and the Appleton,
OH, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Choo Choo, TN, VORTAC and
the New Hope, KY, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway remain as charted.
    V-49: V-49 extends between the Vulcan, AL, VORTAC and the Mystic,
KY, VOR. The airway segment between the Nashville, TN, VORTAC and the
Mystic, KY, VOR is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing
airway remain as charted.
    V-243: V-243 extends between the Craig, FL, VORTAC and the Bowling
Green, KY, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Choo Choo, TN, VORTAC
and the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions
of the existing airway remain as charted.
    T-325: T-325 extends between the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC and the
Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC. The Bowling Green, KY (BWG), route point is
changed from being listed as a ``VORTAC'' to a ``DME''. Additionally,
the Bowling Green, KY, ``BWG'' identifier and Terre Haute, IN, ``TTH''
identifier are added to the first line of the route description and the
geographic coordinates of each route point are expressed in degrees,
minutes, seconds, and hundredths of a second. The existing RNAV route
remains as charted.
    The NAVAID radials listed in the ATS route descriptions below are
unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying Jet Route J-6,
VOR Federal airways V-5, V-49, and V-243, and RNAV routes Q-68 and T-
325, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the
Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion
under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order
1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-
6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact
review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace
areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71,
Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic
Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not
expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-6 [Amended]

    From Salinas, CA; INT Salinas 145[deg] and Avenal, CA, 292[deg]
radials; Avenal; INT Avenal 119[deg] and Palmdale, CA, 310[deg]
radials; Palmdale; Hector, CA; Needles, CA; Drake, AZ; Zuni, AZ;
Albuquerque, NM; Tucumcari, NM; Panhandle, TX; Will Rogers, OK; to
Little Rock, AR. From Charleston, WV; INT Charleston 076[deg] and
Martinsburg, WV, 243[deg] radials; Martinsburg; Lancaster, PA;
Broadway, NJ; Sparta, NJ; to Albany, NY.
* * * * *

Paragraph 2006 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

Q-68 LITTR, AR to OTTTO, VA [Amended]

LITTR, AR                                         WP                            (Lat. 34[deg]40'39.90'' N, long. 092[deg]10'49.26'' W)
SOPIE, TN                                         FIX                           (Lat. 36[deg]08'37.48'' N, long. 088[deg]33'47.95'' W)
Bowling Green, KY                                 DME                           (Lat. 36[deg]55'43.47'' N, long. 086[deg]26'36.36'' W)

YOCKY, KY                                         FIX                           (Lat. 37[deg]39'14.79'' N, long. 084[deg]09'22.45'' W)
SPAYD, WV                                         FIX                           (Lat. 38[deg]11'36.56'' N, long. 082[deg]19'28.69'' W)
Charleston, WV (HVQ)                              VOR/DME                       (Lat. 38[deg]20'58.83'' N, long. 081[deg]46'11.69'' W)
TOMCA, WV                                         WP                            (Lat. 38[deg]34'42.49'' N, long. 080[deg]36'41.09'' W)
RONZZ, WV                                         WP                            (Lat. 38[deg]33'16.08'' N, long. 080[deg]07'56.63'' W)
HHOLZ, WV                                         WP                            (Lat. 38[deg]38'01.96'' N, long. 079[deg]41'33.22'' W)
CAPOE, VA                                         WP                            (Lat. 38[deg]51'13.13'' N, long. 078[deg]22'27.45'' W)
OTTTO, VA                                         WP                            (Lat. 38[deg]51'15.81'' N, long. 078[deg]12'20.01'' W)

* * * * *

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-5 [Amended]

    From Pecan, GA; Vienna, GA; Dublin, GA; Athens, GA; INT Athens
340[deg] and Electric City, SC, 274[deg] radials; INT Electric City
274[deg] and Choo Choo, TN, 127[deg] radials; to Choo Choo. From New
Hope, KY; Louisville, KY; Cincinnati, OH; to Appleton, OH.
* * * * *

V-49 [Amended]

    From Vulcan, AL; Decatur, AL; to Nashville, TN.
* * * * *

V-243 [Amended]

    From Craig, FL; Waycross, GA; Vienna, GA; LaGrange, GA; INT
LaGrange 342[deg] and Choo Choo, TN, 189[deg] radials; to Choo Choo.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-325 Bowling Green, KY (BWG) to Terre Haute, IN (TTH) [Amended]

Bowling Green, KY (BWG)                           DME                           (Lat. 36[deg]55'43.47'' N, long. 086[deg]26'36.36'' W)
RENRO, KY                                         WP                            (Lat. 37[deg]28'50.53'' N, long. 086[deg]39'19.25'' W)
LOONE, KY                                         WP                            (Lat. 37[deg]44'14.43'' N, long. 086[deg]45'18.02'' W)
APALO, IN                                         WP                            (Lat. 38[deg]00'20.59'' N, long. 086[deg]51'35.27'' W)
BUNKA, IN                                         WP                            (Lat. 39[deg]04'57.32'' N, long. 087[deg]09'06.58'' W)
Terre Haute, IN (TTH)                             VORTAC                        (Lat. 39[deg]29'20.19'' N, long. 087[deg]14'56.45'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-13526 Filed 6-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59340-59341]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23315]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73220; File No. SR-ICC-2014-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of
Additional Standard Emerging European and Middle Eastern Sovereign
Single Names

September 25, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On July 31, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change SR-ICC-2014-13 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 15, 2014.\3\ The Commission did not receive any comments on
the proposed rule change.\4\ This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 34-72802 (Aug.11, 2014), 79 FR
48280 (Aug. 15, 2014) (SR-ICC-2014-13).
    \4\ On August 18, 2014, ICC filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. ICC withdrew Amendment No. 1 on August 21,
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICC proposes to adopt rules that will provide the basis for ICC to
clear additional credit default swap contracts. Specifically, ICC is
proposing to amend Section 26D of its Rules to provide for the
clearance of additional Standard Emerging Sovereign Single Name
constituents of the CDX Emerging Markets Index (``SES Contracts'').
Currently, ICC clears six SES Contracts: four Standard Latin America
Sovereign Single Name constituents and two Standard Emerging European
and Middle Eastern Sovereign Single Name constituents of the CDX
Emerging Markets Index (the ``SEEME Contracts''). The proposed rule
change would provide for the clearance of two additional SEEME
Contracts: the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of South Africa.
    ICC currently clears Series 14-21 of the CDX Emerging Markets
Index. Of the CDX Emerging Markets Indices cleared by ICC, the Republic
of Hungary is a constituent of the CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series
14-18, and the Republic of South Africa is a constituent of the CDX
Emerging Markets Index, Series 14-21. These two additional SEEME
Contracts would initially be offered on the 2014 ISDA Credit
Derivatives Definitions. ICC states that the addition of these SEEME
Contracts will allow market participants an increased ability to manage
risk, by providing market participants the ability to offset related
index positions.
    These additional SEEME Contracts would have terms consistent with
the other SEEME Contracts currently cleared by ICC and governed by
Subchapter 26D of the ICC rules, namely the Russian Federation and the
Republic of Turkey. Minor revisions to Subchapter 26D (Standard
Emerging Sovereign (``SES'') Single Name) are proposed to provide for
clearing the additional SEEME Contracts. Rule 26D-102 would be modified
to include the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of South Africa in
the list of specific Eligible SES Reference Entities to be cleared by
ICC. ICC represents that the addition of these products would not
require any changes to ICC's Risk Management Framework or other
policies and procedures constituting rules within the meaning of the
Act. ICC states that, in connection with the clearance of the new
contracts, it will apply its existing margin and guaranty fund
methodology, operational and managerial resources, settlement
procedures and account structures, and default management policies and
procedures, which, together, it believes will provide sufficient
financial, operational, and managerial resources to support the
clearing of the new contracts.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \5\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\
requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency are
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the rules
thereunder applicable to ICC. The proposed rule change will provide for
clearing of additional SEEME Contracts, which are substantially similar
to other SEEME Contracts cleared by ICC, and the new contracts will be
cleared pursuant to ICC's existing clearing arrangements and related
financial safeguards, protections and risk management framework,
including policies and procedures. The Commission believes that the
proposal is therefore consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements,
contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the safeguarding of

securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC, and the
protection of investors and the public interest, within the meaning of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \9\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2014-13) be, and hereby
is, approved.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23315 Filed 9-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


# 12.10.2019: Cleanded and commented
# 8.02.2018: simplified MC model to speed up
chlrat <- function(df1, qa, fitout = NULL, runmod = T) {

    require(rstan)
    require(mgcv)
    source("logtick.exp.R")
    source("binv.R")

    nchains <- 6  # number of concurrent chains

    # make mc into integer times 10
    df1$mc <- round(df1$mc*10)
    df1$mc[is.na(df1$mc)] <- 0

    # drop below detection limit chl
    df1$chl[df1$chl==0] <- NA

    # log transforms
    df1$log.cyano <- log(df1$biov.cyano*1e-6)
    df1$biov.tot <- log(df1$biov.tot*1e-6)
    df1$chl.loge <- log(df1$chl)

    # drop samples missing cyano or chl
    incvec <- !is.na(df1$log.cyano) & ! is.na(df1$chl.loge)
    df1 <- df1[incvec,]

    df1$id2 <- paste(df1$site.id.c, df1$visit.no, sep = "--")

    # outliers: two cyano biov measurements that are very low omitted
    incvec <- df1$log.cyano < -3 & df1$mc > 50
    df1 <- df1[!incvec,]

    # drop HI (not in conterminous US)
    incvec <- df1$st.nla2012 == "HI"
    df1 <- df1[!incvec,]

    df1 <- df1[, c("idnew",  "log.cyano", "prop.cyano", "biov.tot",
                   "chl.loge", "mc",
                   "st.nla2012", "us.l3code")]

    # center chl and biov
    mnval.chl <- mean(df1$chl.loge)
    df1$chl.loge <- df1$chl.loge - mnval.chl
    mnval.biov <- mean(df1$biov.tot)
    df1$biov.tot <- df1$biov.tot - mnval.biov
    df1$log.cyano <- df1$log.cyano - mnval.biov

    # prepare QA data
    qa$log.cyano1 <- log(qa$biov1.cyano*1.e-6)
    qa$log.cyano2 <- log(qa$biov2.cyano*1.e-6)
    qa$prop.cyano2 <- qa$biov2.cyano/qa$biov2
    qa$biov.tot2 <- log(qa$biov2*1.e-6) - mnval.biov

    # only MSU resample is a duplicate so only use that one
    selvec <- ! is.na(qa$log.cyano2)
    qa <- qa[selvec,]
    df2 <- merge(df1, qa[, c("idnew", "log.cyano2", "prop.cyano2", "biov.tot2")],
                 by = "idnew")

    df1b <- df2[, c("idnew", "log.cyano2", "prop.cyano2", "biov.tot2")]
    names(df1b) <- c("idnew", "log.cyano", "prop.cyano", "biov.tot")

    # add in blank columns so that I can rbind QA data with main data
    df1b$chl.loge <- NA
    df1b$mc <- NA
    df1b$st.nla2012 <- NA
    df1b$us.l3code <- NA

    df1 <- rbind(df1, df1b)

    # subsample for model testing
    set.seed(10)
    idu <- unique(df1$idnew)
    selvec <- is.na(df1$mc)
    idp <- df1$idnew[selvec]  # select replicates in subsample
    isamp <- sample(length(idu))
    n <- nrow(df1)
    idpick <- unique(c(idp, idu[isamp[1:round(n*0.20)]]))
    incvec <- rep(F, times = nrow(df1))
    for (i in idpick) incvec <- incvec|df1$idnew == i
    # comment this out to stop subsampling
    #df1 <- df1[incvec,]

    # reset site id factors
    df1$idnew <- factor(df1$idnew)
    df1$sampnum <- as.numeric(df1$idnew)
    w <- regexpr("--", as.character(df1$idnew))
    df1$site.id.c <- substring(as.character(df1$idnew), 1, w-1)
    df1$site.id.c <- factor(df1$site.id.c)

    df1$st.nla2012 <- factor(df1$st.nla2012)
    df1$istate <- as.numeric(df1$st.nla2012)
    df1$us.l3code <- factor(df1$us.l3code)

    # specify dfsamp as samples with mc (not replicate cyano)
    incvec <- ! is.na(df1$mc)
    dfsamp <- df1[incvec,]
    dfsamp <- dfsamp[order(dfsamp$sampnum),]

    mnval <- c(mnval.chl, mnval.biov)
    names(mnval) <- c("chl","biov")

    lookup <- unique.data.frame(dfsamp[, c("sampnum", "site.id.c")])
    lookup$sitenum <- as.numeric(lookup$site.id.c)
    lookup <- lookup[order(lookup$sampnum),]

    datstan <- list(n = nrow(df1),
                    nsamp = nrow(dfsamp),
                    chl = dfsamp$chl.loge,
                    chl2 = dfsamp$chl.loge^2,
                    nsite = max(lookup$sitenum),
                    sitenum = lookup$sitenum,
                    propcyano = round(df1$prop.cyano*100),
                    biov = df1$biov.tot,
                    id = df1$sampnum,
                    mc = dfsamp$mc,
                    nstate = length(levels(dfsamp$st.nla2012)),
                    istate = as.numeric(dfsamp$st.nla2012))

    print(str(datstan))

    modstan <- '
       data {
           int n;                  // total number of samples
           int nsamp;              // number of samples without QA
           vector[nsamp] chl;      // observed log chl
           vector[nsamp] chl2;     // log chl squared
           int nsite;              // number of lakes
           int sitenum[nsamp];     // lookup table for sitenum
           int propcyano[n];       // proportion cyanobacteria
           vector[n] biov;         // total phytoplankton biovolume
           int id[n];              // sample number for full dataset
           int mc[nsamp];          // observed MC
           int nstate;             // number of states
           int istate[nsamp];      // state associated with each sample
       }
       parameters {
          // parameters for chl-cyano relationship
           vector[3] muf;
           real<lower = 0> sig[4];
           vector[nsamp] eta1;
           vector[nsamp] eta2;
           vector[n] eta3;

           // parameters for cyano-mc relationship
           vector[3] d;
           real cp;
           real<lower = 0> phi;

           // parameters for site mean chl
           real<lower = 0> sigchl[2];
           vector[nsite] etachl;
       }
       transformed parameters {
            vector[nsamp] biov_mean;
            vector[nsamp] alpha;
            vector[nsamp] cyano_mean;
            vector[n] alpha2;
            vector[nsamp] mcmean;
            vector[nsite] chlsite;

            chlsite = etachl*sigchl[1];

            biov_mean = chl + eta1*sig[1];
            // quadratic relationship for chl-propcyano
            alpha = muf[1] + muf[2] * chl + muf[3] * chl2 + sig[2]*eta2;
            alpha2 = alpha[id] + sig[3]*eta3;
            // compute mean cyano
            cyano_mean = biov_mean + log(inv_logit(alpha));
            // piecewise linear relationship for MC
            mcmean = d[1] + d[2]*cyano_mean +
                    (d[3]-d[2])*(cyano_mean - cp) .* inv_logit(10*(cyano_mean-cp));
       }

       model {
            // priors
            sigchl ~ cauchy(0,3);
            etachl ~ normal(0,1);
            sig ~ cauchy(0,3);
            eta1 ~ normal(0,1);
            eta2~ normal(0,1);
            eta3 ~ normal(0,1);
            d ~ normal(0,3);
            cp ~ normal(0,1);
            phi ~ normal(0,3);

           // sampling statements
            chl ~ normal(chlsite[sitenum], sigchl[2]);
            biov ~ normal(biov_mean[id], sig[4]);
            propcyano ~ binomial_logit(100, alpha2);
            mc ~ neg_binomial_2_log(mcmean, phi);
       }
    '

    if (runmod) {

        rstan_options(auto_write= TRUE)
        options(mc.cores = nchains)
        fitout <- stan(model_code = modstan, data = datstan,
                       chains = nchains, iter = 500, warmup = 250,
                       control = list(max_treedepth = 15, adapt_delta = 0.9))
        return(fitout)
    }
    else {
        varout <- extract(fitout, pars = c("muf", "sig", "d", "cp", "phi",
                                      "cyano_mean", "sigchl", "chlsite"))

        grey.t <- adjustcolor("grey39", alpha.f = 0.5)

        ### plot chl vs. phytoplankton biovolume
        dev.new()
        #png(width = 6.5, height = 2, pointsize = 8, units = "in", res= 600,
#        file = "figures/all3.png")
        layout(matrix(c(1,2,3), nrow = 1, ncol = 3), widths = c(2, 2.25, 2.25))
        par(mar = c(4,4,1,1), mgp = c(2.3,1,0))
        plot(dfsamp$chl.loge + mnval["chl"], dfsamp$biov.tot + mnval["biov"],
             axes = F,
             xlab = expression(Chl~italic(a)~(mu*g/L)),
             ylab = expression(Phytoplankton~biovolume~(mm^3/L)),
             pch = 21, col = "grey", bg = "white")
        abline(-mnval["chl"]+mnval["biov"], 1)
        logtick.exp(0.0001, 10, c(1,2), c(F,F))

        ### plot chl vs. cyano relative abundance (prop.cyano)
        # prepare prop.cyano for plotting by converting 1s and 0s to
        # values close to 1 and 0, so they can be logit transformed
        incvec <- dfsamp$prop.cyano == 1
        dfsamp$prop.cyano[incvec] <- NA
        maxval <- max(dfsamp$prop.cyano, na.rm = T)
        dfsamp$prop.cyano[incvec] <- 1 - (1-maxval)*0.5
        incvec <- dfsamp$prop.cyano == 0
        dfsamp$prop.cyano[incvec] <- NA
        minval <- min(dfsamp$prop.cyano, na.rm = T)
        dfsamp$prop.cyano[incvec] <- 0.5*minval

        # average prop.cyano in bins of about 20 samples
        bout <- binv(dfsamp$chl.loge,
                     qlogis(dfsamp$prop.cyano), 20)

        # compute posterior predictions of mean relationship
        np <- 80   # posterior predictions at 80 points
        predout <- matrix(NA, ncol = 3, nrow = np)
        xrange <- range(bout$xb)
        x <- seq(xrange[1], xrange[2], length = np)

        for (j in 1:np) {
            y <- varout$muf[,1] + varout$muf[,2]*x[j] +
                varout$muf[,3]*x[j]^2
            predout[j,] <- quantile(y,prob = c(0.05,0.5,0.95))
        }

        plot(bout$xb+mnval["chl"], bout$yb, axes = F,
             pch = 21,  col = "grey39",
             bg = "white", ylab = "Cyanobacteria rel. abund.",
             xlab = expression(Chl~italic(a)~(mu*g/L)))
        logtick.exp(0.001, 10, c(1), c(F,T))
        # vertical axes are logit transformed
        lab0 <- c(0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9, 0.95)
        at0 <- qlogis(lab0)
        axis(2, at = at0, lab = lab0)
        lab0 <- seq(0.025, 0.95, by = 0.025)
        at0 <- qlogis(lab0)
        axis(2, at = at0, lab = NA, tcl = -0.2)
        polygon(c(x, rev(x)) + mnval["chl"],
                c(predout[,1], rev(predout[,3])),
                border= NA, col = grey.t)
        lines(x + mnval["chl"], predout[,2])

        ## plot mean cyano biov vs. MC
        ## compute mean predicted cyano biov
        dfsamp$cyano.mean <- apply(varout$cyano_mean, 2, mean)

        ## mean microcystin in bins of 15
        bout <- binv(dfsamp$cyano.mean, dfsamp$mc, 15)
        bout$yb[bout$yb == 0] <- NA

        ## posterior predictions assuming mean cyano biov is known
        x <- seq(min(bout$xb), max(bout$xb),length = np)
        predout <- matrix(NA, ncol = 3, nrow=length(x))
        for (j in 1:length(x)) {
            mcmean <- varout$d[,1] + varout$d[,2]*x[j] +
                (varout$d[,3]-varout$d[,2])*
                    (x[j] - varout$cp)*as.numeric(x[j] > varout$cp)
            predout[j,] <- quantile(mcmean-log(10), prob = c(0.05, 0.5, 0.95))
        }
        ylim <- range(log(bout$yb*0.1), na.rm = T)
        plot(bout$xb, log(bout$yb*0.1), axes = F,
             pch = 21, col = "grey39", bg = "white",
             xlab = expression(Cyano~biovolume~(mm^3/L)),
             ylab = expression(MC~(mu*g/L)))
        incvec <- is.na(bout$yb)
        points(bout$xb[incvec],
               rep(ylim[1] - 0.02*diff(range(ylim)), times = sum(incvec)),
               pch = 21, col ="grey39", bg = "black", cex = 0.6)
        logtick.exp(0.0001, 10, c(1,2), c(F,F))

        polygon(c(x, rev(x)),
                c(predout[,1], rev(predout[,3])),
                col = grey.t, border= NA)
        lines(x, predout[,2])

    }

}
## runmod variable set to T to run simulation and set to F to
##  run post processing.
fitout <- chlrat(dat.merge.all, qa.biov, runmod = T)
## post processing
chlrat(dat.merge.all, qa.biov, fitout, runmod = F)