Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 31, 2010 / Notices 53371 

RailAmerica, in Fortress Inv. Group, LLC et al.— 

Exemption for Transaction within a Corporate 

Family, Docket No. FD 35123 (STB served Mar. 19, 

2008). According to petitioners, to date, 

RailAmerica has not yet exercised the control of 

FEC. 

DATES: This exemption will be effective 

on September 25, 2010. Petitions to stay 

must be filed by September 3, 2010. 

Petitions to reopen must be filed by 

September 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10 

copies of all pleadings, referring to 

Docket No. FD 35379, to: Surface 

Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001. In 

addition, send one copy of pleadings to 

Louis E. Gitomer, Esq., Law Offices of 

Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore 

Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Davis, (202) 245–0393 [Assistance for 

the hearing impaired is available 

through the Federal Information Relay 

Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339]. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additional information is contained in 

the Board’s decision. Board decisions 

and notices are available on our Web 

site at http://www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: August 25, 2010. 

By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice 

Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner 

Nottingham. 

Kulunie L. Cannon, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21626 Filed 8–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement; 

Santa Rosa County, FL 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

will be prepared for a proposed highway 

project in Santa Rosa County, Florida. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Cathy Kendall, AICP, Environmental 

Specialist, Federal Highway 

Administration, 545 John Knox Road, 

Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32303, 

Telephone: (850) 942–9650. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FHWA, in cooperation with the Florida 

Department of Transportation will 

prepare an EIS for a proposal to improve 

SR 87 in Santa Rosa County, Florida. 

The proposed improvement would 

involve the construction of a new 

roadway connecting SR 87S to SR 87N. 

The new roadway would vary between 

five to eleven miles in length. The 

improvement is considered necessary to 

provide connectivity for the existing 

and projected traffic demand, and to 

provide a more direct corridor for 

emergency evacuations from the Gulf 

Coast. 

Alternatives under consideration 

include (1) taking no action; (2) 

alternative corridors that would provide 

for a four-lane rural highway with plans 

to build two-lanes initially to be 

widened to a four-lane divided rural 

facility as needed in the future. 

Letters describing the proposed action 

and soliciting comments will be sent to 

appropriate Federal, State, and local 

agencies, and to private organizations 

and citizens who have expressed 

interest in this proposal. A series of 

public meetings will be held between 

February, 2010 and June, 2013. In 

addition, a public hearing will be held. 

Public notice will be given of the time 

and place of the meetings and hearing. 

The Draft EIS will be made available for 

public and agency review and comment. 

An informal scoping meeting was held 

at the project site on July 29th, 2010. 

There are no plans to hold a formal 

scoping meeting. Scoping will be 

accomplished by use of the Florida 

Efficient Transportation Decision 

Making Process and a series of meetings 

for agencies and the public. 

To ensure that the full range of issues 

related to the proposed action are 

addressed and all significant issues 

identified, comments and suggestions 

are invited from all interested parties. 

Comments or questions concerning this 

proposed action and the EIS should be 

directed to the FHWA at the address 

provided above. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, 

Planning and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding inter-governmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Issued on: August 25, 2010. 

Martin Knopp, 

Division Administrator, FHWA, Federal 

Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21740 Filed 8–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2010–0226] 

Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities: 

Obtaining Approval of Alternative 

Vapor-Gas Dispersion Models 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, 

(PHMSA) DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory 

bulletin. 

SUMMARY: This advisory bulletin 

provides guidance on the requirements 

for obtaining approval of alternative 

vapor-gas dispersion models under 

Subpart B of 49 CFR part 193. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Helm at 405–954–7219 or 

charles.helm@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) issues 

federal safety standards for siting 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. 

Those standards require that an operator 

or governmental authority control the 

activities around an LNG facility to 

protect the public from the adverse 

effects of thermal radiation and 

flammable vapor-gas dispersion. Certain 

mathematical models and other 

parameters must be used to calculate the 

dimensions of these so-called ‘‘exclusion 

zones.’’ 

In the case of vapor-gas dispersion, 

two different models may be used where 

appropriate: (1) The DEGADIS Dense 

Gas Dispersion Model (DEGADIS), an 

integral model that simulates the 

downwind dispersion of dense gases in 

the atmosphere, and (2) FEM3A, a 

dispersion model that accounts for 

additional cloud dilution which may be 

caused by the complex flow patterns 

induced by tank and dike structures. 

The use of alternative vapor-gas 

dispersion models is also permitted, if 

those models take into account the same 

physical factors as the approved models, 

are validated by experimental test data, 

and receive the Administrator’s 

approval. Conservatism, field testing, 

post-testing data evaluation, and 

correlative analysis are critical to 

satisfying these conditions. 

In addition, PHMSA’s federal safety 

standards incorporate by reference the 

National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) NFPA 59A: Standard for the 

Production, Storage, and Handling of 

Liquefied Natural Gas. That consensus 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
53372 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 31, 2010 / Notices 

industry standard is issued by the 

Technical Committee on Liquefied 

Natural Gas of the NFPA. 

Several years ago, the NFPA 59A 

Technical Committee tasked the Fire 

Protection Research Foundation (FPRF), 

a nonprofit entity that performs research 

for the NFPA, with developing a tool for 

evaluating the suitability of LNG vaporgas dispersion models. The FPRF 

subsequently contracted with the Health 

& Safety Laboratory; the research agency 

of the United Kingdom Health & Safety 

Executive, to examine the modeling of 

dispersion of LNG spills on land and 

develop guidelines to assess those 

models. 

An expert panel, including 

representatives from Sandia National 

Laboratories, PHMSA, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 

NFPA, the United States Coast Guard, 

and other stakeholders, assembled to 

provide guidance and comment on the 

development of those guidelines. That 

effort led to the creation of the Model 

Evaluation Protocol (MEP) as described 

in M.J. Iving et al., Evaluating Vapor 

Dispersion Models for Safety Analysis of 

LNG Facilities Research Project: 

Technical Report (Apr. 2007) (available 

at http://www.nfpa.org) (Original FPRF 

Report), and supplemented in S. 

Coldrick et al., Validation Database for 

Evaluating Vapor Dispersion Models for 

Safety Analysis of LNG Facilities: Guide 

to the LNG Model Validation Database, 

Version 11.0 (May 2010) (available at 

http://www.nfpa.org) (Supplemental 

FPRF Report): 

The MEP is based on three distinct phases: 

scientific assessment, model verification and 

model validation. The scientific assessment 

is carried out by obtaining detailed 

information on a model from its current 

developer using a specifically designed 

questionnaire and with the aid of other 

papers, reports and user guides. The 

scientific assessment examines the various 

aspects of a model including its physical, 

mathematical and numerical basis, as well as 

user oriented aspects. * * * The outcome of 

this scientific assessment is recorded in a 

MER, along with the outcomes of the 

verification and validation stages * * *. 

[In] [t]he verification stage of the 

protocol[,] * * * evidence * * * is sought 

from the model developer and this is then 

assessed and reported in the MER. The 

validation stage of the MEP involves 

applying the model against a database of 

experimental test cases including both wind 

tunnel experiments and large-scale field 

trials. The aim of the validation stage is 

* * * to quantify the performance of a model 

by comparison of its predictions with 

measurements. 

Funded by a grant from PHMSA, the 

National Association of State Fire 

Marshals (NASFM) then convened a 

panel of its own experts, and that panel 

performed an independent review of the 

MEP and produced a separate technical 

report, National Association of State 

Fire Marshals, Review of the LNG Vapor 

Dispersion Model Evaluation Protocol 

(Jan. 2009) (NASFM MEP Report); see 

also National Association of State Fire 

Marshals, Review of the LNG Source 

Term Models for Hazard Analysis: A 

Review of the State-of-the-Art and an 

Approach to Model Assessment (Jun. 

2009) (NASFM Source Term Report). 

After carefully considering the 

information provided in the Original 

FRPF Report, Supplemental FPRF 

Report, and NASFM MEP Report, 

PHMSA is issuing further guidance on 

the standard for obtaining approval of 

alternative vapor-gas dispersion models, 

particularly the requirement for 

validation by experimental test data. 

That guidance is based on the MEP’s 

three-stage process for evaluating such 

models, but includes modifications to 

address the concerns of other 

stakeholders, including NASFM and 

FERC. 

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB–10–07) 

To: Owners and Operators of LNG 

Facilities. 

Subject: Liquefied Natural Gas 

Facilities: Obtaining Approval of 

Alternative Vapor-Gas Dispersion 

Models. 

Advisory: In seeking the 

Administrator’s approval of an 

alternative vapor-gas dispersion model, 

a petitioner may demonstrate that its 

model has been validated by 

experimental test data by using the 

three-stage process described in the 

MEP. A petitioner may also submit a 

MER as evidence of its completion of 

the MEP. 

The model developer or an 

independent body may complete the 

MER, which should contain certain 

information about the proposed model, 

including general information (Section 

1), information for scientific assessment 

(Section 2), information for useroriented assessment (Section 3), 

information on verification (Section 4), 

information on validation (Section 5), 

and other administrative details 

(Section 6). The validation portion of 

the MER should include the validation 

database described in the Original FPRF 

Report and Supplemental FPRF Report, 

with appropriate consideration of the 

additional guidance provided below. 

This guidance relates to some of the 

concerns raised in the NASFM MEP 

Report and by other interested parties, 

including FERC, and is organized to 

correspond with the affected sections of 

the MER. These suggested practices may 

require modification in individual 

cases, and the proponent of an 

alternative model may establish its 

suitability by any other appropriate 

means, subject to the Administrator’s 

approval. 

1. Section 2.1.1.2 Source Geometry 

Handled by the Dispersion Model 

should describe and clearly state the 

limitations of the model related to its 

ability to handle different source terms, 

including: 

a. Ability to handle the dispersion of 

vapors from a transient (i.e., flowing) 

and irregular liquid pool geometries, 

including vaporization from geometries 

with high aspect ratios (i.e., long 

trenches) in the cross-wind and parallelwind direction. 

b. Ability to handle the dispersion of 

vapors from a vaporizing regular liquid 

pool geometry (circular, squared) source 

term. 

c. Ability to handle the simultaneous 

dispersion of vapors from a combination 

(i.e., multiple sources) of the 

phenomena above. 

d. Use of any sub-models to simulate 

the phenomena above. 

2. Section 2.2.2.1 Wind Field should 

describe and clearly state the limitations 

of the model related to its ability to 

model low wind speeds (i.e., less than 

2m/s) and its ability to model 

fluctuating wind speeds. 

3. Section 2.2.2.3 Stratification 

should describe and clearly state the 

limitations of the model related to its 

ability to model atmospheric stabilities 

(e.g., F stability). The description should 

indicate if temperature and/or 

turbulence profiles may be invoked at 

the upwind boundary or if forcing 

functions may be invoked. 

4. Section 2.2.3.1 Terrain Types 

Available and Section 2.3.12 Complex 

Effects: Terrain should describe and 

clearly state the limitations of the model 

related to its ability to model sloping 

terrain, including any special methods 

to model (e.g., gravity vector 

adjustment, sub-model for adjusting 

Cartesian grids, etc). Unique modeling 

characteristics that may alter the terrain 

should be described (e.g., Cartesian 

Grid, Porosity-Distributed Resistance 

methodology, etc). 

5. Section 2.2.4.1 Obstacle Types 

Available and Section 2.3.13 Complex 

Effects: Obstacles should describe and 

clearly state the limitation of the model 

related to its ability to model complex 

geometries, including the limitations 

based on the grid or mesh options 

available (reference can be made to 

Section 2.4.3.1 Computational Mesh). 

Unique modeling characteristics that 

may alter the obstructions should be 

described (e.g., Cartesian Grid, PorosityVerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 30, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM 31AUN1

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 31, 2010 / Notices 53373 

1Model uncertainty due to the uncertainty of the 

physical parameters and assumptions inherently 

built into the model is not required to be quantified, 

although these limitations should clearly be stated 

in the scientific assessment. 

2Source term models may be supplemented with 

an evaluation in accordance with Model 

Assessment Protocol (MAP) published by the FPRF 

in Ivings, et al., LNG Source Term Models for 

Hazard Analysis: A Review of the State-of-the-Art 

and an Approach to Model Assessment (Mar. 2009) 

(available at http://www.nfpa.org) or equivalent 

Health and Safety Executive report, LNG Source 

Term Models for Hazard Analysis: A Review of the 

State-of-the-Art and an Approach to Model 

Assessment, RR789, 2010 (available at http:// 

www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr789.htm). 

Distributed Resistance methodology, 

etc). 

6. Section 2.3.1.5 Turbulence 

Modeling should describe and clearly 

state the limitation of the model related 

to its ability to model turbulence, 

including the turbulence sub-models 

available (e.g., Algebraic, Favre- or 

Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes, 

Reynolds Stress Transport, SpalartAllmaras One-Equation, K-Epsilon Two 

Equation, K-Omega Shear Stress 

Transport, Large Eddy Simulation, 

Detached Eddy Simulation, etc). 

7. Section 2.3.1.7 Boundary 

Conditions should describe and clearly 

state the limitation of the model related 

to its ability to model certain boundary 

conditions, including the boundary 

condition specifications available (e.g., 

wall functions, full-slip, no-slip, partialslip, inlet/outlet boundaries, injection 

boundary, periodic boundary, mirror/ 

symmetry boundary, etc). 

8. Section 2.3.11 Complex Effects: 

Aerosols should describe and clearly 

state the limitations of the model related 

to its ability to model different source 

terms, including: 

a. Ability to handle the dispersion of 

vapors from a flashing source term. 

b. Ability to handle the dispersion of 

vaporized aerosol formed from 

mechanical fragmentation or other 

means of a high pressure release. 

c. Ability to handle the dispersion of 

vaporization from aerosol that has 

settled out (i.e. rainout). 

9. Section 2.4.3.1 Computational 

Mesh should clearly state all features of 

the computational mesh (e.g., 

Automatic, Manual, Structured, 

Unstructured, Cartesian, Curvilinear, 

Body-fitted, H-Type, C-Type, O-Type, 

Triangle/Tetrahedral, Quadrilateral/ 

Hexahedral, Adaptive, Multi-Block, etc). 

10. Section 2.4.3.2 Discretization 

Methods should describe and clearly 

state the limitation of the model related 

to its numerical solution methodologies, 

including a description of the temporal 

discretization methodologies available 

(e.g., Implicit, Explicit, Multi-Stage 

Schemes, Order of Runge-Kutta, 

MUSCL, QUICK, Courant-FriedrchsLewy limitations, etc) and description of 

the spatial discretization methodologies 

available (e.g., Central Schemes, 

Upwind Schemes, etc). 

11. Section 2.6 Sources of Model 

Uncertainty should describe and clearly 

state all known uncertainties described 

in previous sections and any 

uncertainties due to any other physical 

parameters and assumptions inherently 

built into the model. 

12. Section 2.6.4 Sensitivity to Input 

should include a parametric analysis. 

Alternatively, a sensitivity analysis of 

the validation study may be referenced, 

as described below in Section 6.2 

Evaluation Against MEP Quantitative 

Assessment Criteria. 

13. Section 2.7 Limits of 

Applicability should summarize the 

limitations of the model described in 

previous sections and any other 

limitations inherently built into the 

model. 

14. Section 6.2 Evaluation Against 

MEP Quantitative Assessment Criteria 

should provide the following as part of 

the submitted validation phase: 

a. An uncertainty analysis that 

accounts for model uncertainty due to 

uncertainty in the assumption of input 

parameters specified by the user.1 The 

model uncertainty analyses should 

address the following: 

i. Analysis of source term(s). Certain 

models have built-in source models that are 

able to calculate the flashing, mechanical 

fragmentation and subsequent aerosol 

formation and rainout, resultant liquid 

trajectory, flow and vaporization. It is 

recommended that the built-in models be 

used, where appropriate and applicable, as 

those are the most likely to be used during 

hazard analyses. For models without built-in 

source models, it is recommended that 

appropriate source term model(s) 2 be used 

that provides an accurate depiction of the 

experiment that can be inputted into the 

dispersion model as it should generally 

produce better fidelity. Alternatively, 

simplified source term inputs may be used 

with justification provided for the selection 

of pool diameter(s), vaporization rate(s), and 

other specified sources along with a 

sensitivity analysis of the vaporization rate 

and resultant pool diameter(s). A source term 

based on an instantaneously formed pool 

with a vaporization rate and pool size equal 

to the discharge rate (mass balance) based on 

empirically selected vaporization rates of 

0.085kg/m2/sec and 0.167kg/m2/sec should 

be included in the sensitivity analysis. 

ii. Analysis of boundary conditions, 

including wall conditions, slip conditions, 

surface roughness, thermal properties, and 

any other parameters specified for the 

boundaries that may otherwise have a 

significant influence on the model results. 

The analysis should demonstrate the impact 

of the boundary conditions on the analysis. 

This may be accomplished by demonstrating 

that the boundary conditions do not have a 

significant influence on the analysis (i.e., 

boundaries are sufficiently far away not to 

influence the flow field of the vapor cloud) 

and/or through a sensitivity analysis of the 

boundary conditions. For boundary 

conditions associated with the ground, a 

sensitivity analysis, including any bounds 

(e.g., a no-slip v. free-slip) of the boundary 

conditions should be evaluated. 

iii. Analysis of wind profile. Certain 

models are only able to provide steady-state 

wind profiles and/or direction. Other models 

are able to input/calculate transient, 

fluctuating, or periodic (e.g., sinusoidal) 

wind profiles and directions. It is 

recommended that the most accurate 

depiction of the wind field be used, as it 

should provide better fidelity. The wind field 

throughout the domain should be fully 

established before the source term initializes. 

Surface roughness sensitivity analysis should 

be included based on user guide 

documentation or other recommended and 

generally accepted good engineering 

practices that represent surface roughness for 

the area. 

iv. Analysis of sub-models. Certain models 

contain multiple sub-models (e.g., turbulence 

models) that may be selected by the user. It 

is recommended that the most appropriate 

and applicable sub-models be used, as it 

should provide better fidelity. Technical 

justification for the selected sub-models 

should be provided. If multiple sub-models 

may be appropriate and applicable, 

sensitivity analysis should be used for a 

range of sub-models. Any specification in 

associated coefficients may also be subject to 

sensitivity analysis, where warranted. 

v. Analysis of temporal discretization/ 

averaging. Certain models may specify 

different time-averages. Time averages 

should reflect the time averaged data of the 

experimental measurements or less. Where 

time averages cannot be specified to reflect 

the time-averaged data of the experimental 

measurements, sensitivity analyses or 

corrections should be provided. 

vi. Analysis of spatial discretization/ 

averaging and grid resolution. An analysis 

should evaluate the effect of any spatial 

averaging by the model. For Computational 

Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models, a grid 

sensitivity analysis should be provided that 

demonstrates grid independence or 

convergence to a grid independent result 

(e.g., Richardson extrapolation). If overly 

cost-prohibitive, it may be acceptable to 

selectively refine grids in the areas of 

principal interest only based on user guide 

documentation or other recommended and 

generally accepted good engineering 

practices. 

vii. Analysis of geometrical representation 

for sloped and obstructed cases. Certain 

models may not be able to model sloped and 

obstructed flow fields. Others may be limited 

in the representation of slopes (e.g., change 

in gravity vector), or in the representation of 

complex shapes or curvatures by simpler 

geometries (e.g., to fit a Cartesian grid). The 

effect of these simplifications should be 

discussed or evaluated. 

b. An uncertainty analysis that 

accounts for model uncertainty due to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
53374 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 31, 2010 / Notices 

3Experimental uncertainty due to the sampling 

time, time averaging, spatial/volumetric averaging, 

cloud meander, and other errors associated with the 

experiment are not required to be quantified, but 

the analysis may benefit from them being evaluated 

or discussed. 

4 If the model predictions are outside the 

experimental uncertainty interval or MEP SPMs, 

this does not necessarily mean that the model is 

unacceptable, but may alternatively impact the 

safety factor associated with the model usage. 

uncertainty in the output used for 

evaluation. The analyses should address 

the following: 

i. Analysis of spatial output. Certain 

models may be limited in the output of the 

cross wind concentration profile (e.g., 

Gaussian concentration profiles in the crosswind direction). The maximum arc wise 

concentration should be based on the 

location of the experimental sensor data that 

produced the maximum arc wise 

concentration relative to the cloud centerline. 

The centerline concentration of the model 

may not necessarily be representative of the 

maximum concentration measurement 

location. Any interpolations and 

extrapolations used to determine 

concentrations should be documented, 

evaluated and discussed. If a model cannot 

represent the actual location of the sensor 

relative to the centerline, the effect of these 

simplifications should be discussed or 

evaluated. 

ii. Analysis of temporal output. Certain 

models may be limited in the temporal 

resolution that can be outputted. Any 

interpolations and extrapolations used to 

determine concentrations should be 

documented, evaluated and discussed. If 

desired, transient data of the model and 

experimental data may be provided to 

supplement the maximum arc wise values to 

allow for more detailed comparisons with the 

experimental data, including the evaluation 

of discrepancies due to spurious 

experimental or model results. 

c. An uncertainty analysis that 

accounts for experimental uncertainty 

due to uncertainty in the sensor 

measurement of gas concentration,3

where known. Other sources of 

uncertainty may also be included. 

d. Graphical depictions of the 

predicted and measured gas 

concentration values for each 

experiment with indication of the 

experimental and model uncertainty 

determined from the analyses described 

above. Vertical error bars should be 

used to represent the uncertainty. 

e. Calculation of the specific 

performance measures (SPMs) below in 

addition to those specified in the MEP: 

f. Calculation of SPMs specified in the 

MEP for each experiment and data point 

in addition to the average of all 

experiments. 

g. A tabulation of all simulations, 

including all specified input 

parameters, calculated outputs. 

h. A tabulation of all calculated 

SPMs.4

i. All relevant input and output files 

used. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 24, 

2010. 

Jeffrey D. Wiese, 

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21588 Filed 8–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. EP 670 (Sub-No. 1)] 

Notice of Rail Energy Transportation 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Notice of Rail Energy 

Transportation Advisory Committee 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a 

meeting of the Rail Energy 

Transportation Advisory Committee 

(RETAC), pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 

Public Law 92–463, as amended (5 

U.S.C., App. 2). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, September 15, 2010 at 1:30 

p.m. M.D.T. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the offices of Xcel Energy, 1800 Larimer 

Street, 2nd Floor, Conference Center, 

Denver, Colorado 80202. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott M. Zimmerman (202) 245–0202. 

Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RETAC 

arose from a proceeding instituted by 

the Board, in Establishment of a Rail 

Energy Transportation Advisory 

Committee, EP 670. RETAC was formed 

to provide advice and guidance to the 

Board, and to serve as a forum for 

discussion of emerging issues regarding 

the transportation by rail of energy 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESEN31AU10.000</MATH>