Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices 22381 

1Ethyl mercaptan is a colorless organic liquid 

with a low odor threshold of 0.4 parts per billion, 

thus making it easily detectable by persons with a 

normal sense of smell when injected at standard 

industry rates. 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

web site, anyone can find and read the 

comments received into any of our 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

or to the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tyneka Thomas ARM–105, (202) 267– 

7626, FAA, Office of Rulemaking, 800 

Independence Ave SW., Washington, 

DC 20591. This notice is published 

pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 

2102. 

Brenda D. Courtney, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION 

Docket No.: FAA–2012–0137 

Petitioner: Landmark Aviation 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

§§ 135.293(a)(2) and (3), 135.293(b), 

135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 

135.347 

Description of Relief Sought: The 

relief sought would allow Landmark’s 

wholly-owned subsidiary, Piedmont 

Aviation, to receive credit for aircraft 

specific training, testing, and checking 

by pilots while employed by Landmark 

Waukegan, another operating unit of 

Landmark Aviation. In addition the 

requested relief includes aircraftspecific initial new hire ground and 

flight training written, and oral tests, 

competency checks, and pilot in 

command instrument proficiency 

checks. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8983 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Safety Advisory 2012–01] 

Odorant Fade in Railroad Tank Cars 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory. 

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing Safety 

Advisory 2012–01 to remind shippers 

and consignees of railroad tank cars 

containing odorized liquefied petroleum 

gas (LPG), of the importance of taking 

actions to ensure that a sufficient level 

of odorant remains in the LPG 

throughout the entire transportation 

cycle. FRA is issuing this notice to raise 

awareness within the hazardous 

materials community, of the potential 

consequences of having LPG reach endusers as under-odorized or essentially 

non-odorized material due to the 

diminishment of the added odorant 

during the transportation cycle 

(commonly known as ‘‘odorant fade’’). 

This safety advisory recommends that 

shippers and consignees of bulk 

quantities of odorized LPG review their 

existing LPG odorization standards and 

procedures, and take appropriate 

actions to guard against odorant fade in 

their shipments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin R. Blackwell, Railroad Safety 

Specialist, Hazardous Materials 

Division, Office of Safety Assurance and 

Compliance, FRA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: (202) 493–6315; email: 

Kevin.Blackwell@dot.gov); or Kurt 

Eichenlaub, Railroad Safety Specialist, 

Hazardous Materials Division, Office of 

Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 

493–6050; email: 

Kurt.Eichenlaub@dot.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOT’s 

Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(HMR), Title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Parts 171–180, allow 

use of the proper shipping name, 

‘‘liquefied petroleum gas’’ (or LPG), for 

a number of petroleum gases with 

properties similar to propane. Much of 

the LPG loaded and shipped in the 

United States by railroad tank car is 

from bulk suppliers to either industrial 

end-users or to ‘‘midstream’’ suppliers 

who then sell and redistribute the LPG 

to commercial, retail, and general public 

end-users. In 2010, LPG represented less 

than 9 percent of all loaded hazardous 

materials tank car shipments originating 

in the United States. Because LPG is a 

colorless and odorless gas, odorants are 

normally added to the material (with the 

exception of LPG being shipped to 

industrial end-users) in the liquid phase 

to enable human detection when its 

vaporized gases are released in the 

atmosphere. The majority of LPG 

produced for non-industrial uses is 

odorized by bulk providers of the 

material. The presence of LPG in the 

consumer supply chain, with either 

diminished levels of odorant or no 

odorant present, represents significant 

safety risks. Absent sufficient 

odorization of the commodity, LPG 

leaks can go undetected and ignite. 

Diminished or absent levels of LPG 

odorant has been determined to have 

been a contributing factor in incidents 

that have resulted in injuries and 

fatalities. For example, a July 30, 2010, 

incident occurred at a condominium 

construction site in Norfolk, MA, when 

a release of LPG from a leaking 

connection in the basement of a 

building under construction resulted in 

an explosion and fire. This incident 

resulted in one fatality and seven 

injuries. An investigation conducted by 

the Massachusetts Department of Fire 

Services, Division of Fire Safety, 

revealed that the LPG in the storage 

tanks at the construction site had 

virtually no odorant present, explaining 

why no one at the construction site 

reported smelling the LPG leak prior to 

the explosion. While the LPG involved 

in the Norfolk accident did not originate 

from a rail shipment, the investigation 

into the accident revealed that a large 

quantity of LPG—shipped via railroad 

tank car as odorized—had been 

delivered to commercial and retail endusers with either a diminished level of 

odorization or no odorization at all. 

Odorization 

The proper odorization of LPG is 

addressed by a combination of Federal 

and State laws and regulations, as well 

as by accepted industry standards and 

practices. In accordance with the 

applicable laws and regulations, LPG 

intended for use by non-industrial 

entities (e.g., commercial and retail 

entities, and the general public) is 

generally required to be odorized (or 

‘‘stenched’’) to enable the detection of 

any unintended release or leak of the 

gas. In the context of the rail 

transportation of LPG, the HMR require 

the odorization of LPG transported in 

cargo tanks and portable tanks, but not 

railroad tank cars. Specifically, 49 CFR 

173.315(b)(1) provides that odorizing 

LPG shipments in cargo and portable 

tanks with 1.0 pound of ethyl mercaptan 

per 10,000 gallons of LPG, or the 

equivalent, is an acceptable form of 

odorization.1 That section also provides 

an exception from the odorization 

requirement if odorization would be 

‘‘harmful in the use or further 

processing of the [LPG], or if odorization 

will serve no useful purpose as a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22382 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices 

warning agent in such use or further 

processing.’’ Essentially, this exception 

applies to LPG being transported to 

industrial end-users. 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s requirements 

regarding the storage and handling of 

LPG found at 29 CFR 1910.110(b)(1) 

essentially mirror DOT’s odorization 

requirements at 49 CFR 173.315(b)(1). In 

addition to these Federal regulations, 

the National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) has also established odorization 

standards that largely mirror the Federal 

requirements. See NFPA Standard 58, 

paragraph 1–4.1. In addition, most 

States have adopted laws, regulations, 

or codes that incorporate this NFPA 

standard. Further, it is standard 

industry practice to exceed the 

established regulatory minimums and 

add 1.5 pounds of ethyl mercaptan per 

10,000 gallons of LPG in order to 

combat the effects of odorant fade 

should a release of material occur. 

Odorant Fade 

Under-odorization of railroad tank 

cars containing LPG is sometimes 

caused by the phenomenon commonly 

known as odorant fade. While LPG may 

be satisfactorily odorized in accordance 

with the above requirements at the 

source, there are circumstances that may 

cause the odorant added to the LPG to 

‘‘fade’’ and render it virtually 

undetectable by a person’s sense of 

smell. Typically, there are three 

different potential causes of odorant 

fade: oxidation, container condition, 

and gas quality. 

This safety advisory focuses on 

recommendations to prevent odorant 

fade caused by oxidation and/or the 

condition of the LPG container. First, 

oxidation can cause odorant fade when 

the presence of rust in a tank car, or the 

subsequent formation of rust over time, 

as a result of the presence of oxygen and 

moisture, decreases the amount of 

odorant that is in the LPG in the tank 

due to a chemical reaction between the 

odorant and the oxidized (rusted) 

surface. The presence of rust causes 

mercaptans to oxidize into other 

compounds that have a different odor 

and lower intensity. Residual oxygen 

from air and moisture that may be in the 

container can increase the oxidation rate 

of rust or even cause new rust to form 

where previously none existed, 

exasperating the rate at which the 

odorant fades. 

Next, the condition of the LPG 

container itself can also potentially 

cause odorant fade. An odorant can 

adsorb onto the metal surface of the 

container or even potentially be 

absorbed into the metal surface itself. 

This process is most likely to occur 

when the container is new and has not 

previously contained odorized LPG. It 

can also occur when the inside of the 

container has been left open to the air 

while the container is out of service or 

after the container has been cleaned and 

purged (e.g., when a railroad tank car is 

cleaned and purged for repair or service 

at a tank car facility and then later 

placed back into LPG service). 

There are existing industry 

procedures that can passivate (or treat) 

the interior surface of an LPG container 

in order to render the surface inactive so 

that the odorant will not be diminished 

through oxidation or adsorption/ 

absorption. Also, there are several 

methods available to detect whether 

there are adequate amounts of odorant 

in LPG at any given point. The simplest, 

and most often used method, is a ‘‘sniff 

test’’ where a person uses their sense of 

smell to detect the presence of odorant. 

The person performing a sniff test 

should have a normal sense of smell, 

uncompromised by such factors as 

olfactory fatigue, sinus congestion, 

allergies, head colds, smoking, or the 

recent use of alcohol or drugs. 

Colorimetric tube testing and the gas 

chromatography test method provide 

more quantitative methods to measure 

the concentration of the odorant in LPG. 

The colorimetric tube, or stain tube, test 

method measures the concentration of 

odorant by pulling a measured amount 

of LPG through a hermetically sealed 

glass tube containing a detecting 

reagent. The odorant causes a chemical 

reaction resulting in a color change of 

the tube material. The quantity of 

odorant can be measured by reading the 

concentration of the odorant from the 

calibration scale that is marked on the 

tube. The gas chromatography test 

method is the most accurate method 

because it separates the various 

components of the LPG and odorant for 

identification. However, this method is 

costly and requires sending LPG 

samples to a location that has the proper 

equipment and trained personnel to 

perform these tests. 

Railroad Tank Cars 

At present, while DOT’s regulation 

discussed above contains an odorization 

requirement for LPG transported in 

cargo and portable tank containers, 

there is no comparable DOT regulation 

regarding the transportation of LPG 

transported in railroad tank cars. FRA is 

currently reviewing this situation to 

determine if further action is warranted. 

During routine inspections at facilities 

that receive railroad tank cars loaded 

with LPG, FRA is obtaining data on the 

LPG odorization testing procedures 

being used by industry. FRA is also 

collecting data on the number of LPG 

shipments that are received yearly, the 

number of these shipments that are 

shipped as odorized versus nonodorized, and the number of odorized 

shipments received that failed 

odorization testing or were identified as 

having insufficient odorant. 

As noted above, there are currently 

Federal regulations, State laws, and 

accepted industry standards and testing 

methods in place to ensure proper LPG 

odorization. FRA encourages industry 

members to comply with all applicable 

requirements and standards. In order to 

help prevent odorant fade incidents 

involving LPG transported by railroad 

tank car, and to facilitate compliance 

with existing requirements and 

standards, this safety advisory makes 

several recommendations below. 

Recommended Action: In an effort to 

encourage industry members to take 

actions to ensure that a sufficient level 

of odorant remains in odorized LPG 

shipped via railroad tank car throughout 

the entire transportation cycle, FRA 

recommends that: 

1. Facilities that load, offer, receive, or 

offload railroad tank cars containing 

LPG review their procedures to ensure 

they are adequate to address the issue of 

‘‘odorant fade’’ and its various potential 

causes, and that those procedures 

ensure that tank car shipments of 

odorized LPG are odorized to meet 

applicable regulatory and industry 

requirements and maintain sufficient 

levels of odorant throughout the entire 

transportation cycle. Such procedures 

should ensure quantitative testing 

methods are used to measure the 

amount of odorant in LPG. 

2. Facilities that load odorized LPG 

into railroad tank cars have adequate 

procedures in place to identify if a tank 

car received for loading of odorized LPG 

has been out of LPG product service for 

any extended length of time, is coming 

from a tank car repair or cleaning 

facility, or has been subjected to any 

condition that could lead to corrosion of 

the tank. 

3. Facilities that load odorized LPG 

into railroad tank cars inspect, to the 

degree possible, railcars they receive for 

signs of oxidation or corrosion, which 

can lead to the loss of odorant. 

4. Facilities that load odorized LPG 

into tank cars take any other corrective 

actions needed to ensure sufficient 

levels of odorization remain in the 

shipment throughout the entire 

transportation cycle, such as increasing 

the amount of odorant injected into the 

LPG, if necessary. 

FRA encourages industry members to 

take actions consistent with the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices 22383 

preceding recommendations, and to take 

other complementary actions to help 

ensure the safety of the Nation’s citizens 

and railroads. FRA may modify this 

Safety Advisory 2012–01, issue 

additional safety advisories, or take 

other appropriate actions necessary to 

ensure the highest level of safety on the 

Nation’s railroads, including pursuing 

other corrective measures under its 

regulatory authority. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 9, 

2012. 

Robert C. Lauby, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Railroad 

Safety/Chief Safety Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8970 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft 

Prevention Standard; TESLA 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the petition of Tesla Motors Inc’s. 

(Tesla) for an exemption of the Model S 

vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR 

Part 543, Exemption from the Theft 

Prevention Standard. This petition is 

granted, because the agency has 

determined that the antitheft device to 

be placed on the line as standard 

equipment is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard 49 CFR Part 541, 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard. Tesla requested confidential 

treatment for specific information in its 

petition. The agency granted Tesla’s 

request for confidential treatment by a 

letter dated December 5, 2011. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2012 model year (MY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Standards, NHTSA, W43–439, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. Ms. Ballard’s phone number 

is (202) 366–5222. Her fax number is 

(202) 493–2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated October 24, 2011, Tesla 

requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) 

for the Model S vehicle line beginning 

with MY 2012. The petition requested 

an exemption from parts-marking 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption 

from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 

based on the installation of an antitheft 

device as standard equipment for the 

entire vehicle line. 

Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA to grant an exemption 

for one vehicle line per model year. In 

its petition, Tesla provided a detailed 

description and diagram of the identity, 

design and location of the components 

of the antitheft device for the Model S 

vehicle line. Tesla will install a passive, 

transponder-based, electronic engine 

immobilizer device as standard 

equipment on its Model S vehicle line 

beginning with MY 2012. Key 

components of the antitheft device 

include an engine immobilizer, security 

controller, gateway function, drive 

inverter and a passive entry transponder 

(PET). Tesla stated that its immobilizer 

device, which will be installed 

beginning with its MY 2012 vehicle 

line, will be an upgraded version with 

a more robust design than the antitheft 

device already installed as standard 

equipment on its MYs 2008–2011 Tesla 

roadsters. Tesla stated that the new 

design of its immobilizer device will 

have enhanced communications 

between components, prevent 

tampering and also provide additional 

features to enhance its overall 

effectiveness. 

In addition to Tesla’s immobilizer 

device, an audible alarm (horn) will be 

incorporated as standard equipment, but 

no visual feature will be provided with 

the alarm system. Tesla stated that its 

alarm system will activate with any 

unauthorized attempt to break in the 

front and rear cargo areas. Tesla also 

stated that any unauthorized entry 

without the correct PET will trigger the 

audible alarm. Tesla stated that its 

antitheft device has a two-step 

activation process with a vehicle code 

query being conducted at each stage. 

The first stage allows access to the 

vehicle when an authorization cycle 

occurs between the PET and the 

Security Controller as long as the PET 

is in close proximity to the car and the 

driver either pushes the lock/unlock 

button on the key fob, pushes the 

exterior door handle to activate the 

handle sensors or inserts a hand into the 

handle to trigger the latch release. 

During the second stage, vehicle 

operation will be enabled when the 

driver has depressed the brake pedal 

and moves the gear selection stalk to 

drive or reverse. When one of these 

actions is performed, the security 

controller will poll to verify if the 

appropriate PET is inside the vehicle. 

Upon location of the PET, the security 

controller will run an authentication 

cycle with the key confirming the 

correct PET is being used inside the 

vehicle. Tesla stated that once 

authentication is successful, the security 

controller initiates an encrypted 

message through the gateway enabling 

the drive inverter to receive the 

encrypted message which then 

processes the message generating an 

encrypted response posting the message 

back to the security controller. If the 

encrypted exchange yields a result that 

meets the security code’s expectations 

of the security controller, the correct 

exchange will authorize the drive 

inverter to deactivate immobilization 

allowing the vehicle to be driven under 

its own power. Tesla stated that if the 

results are not correct and there is no 

response to the drive inverter from the 

security controller, the vehicle will 

remain immobilized and the drive 

inverter will retry the exchange until 

there is a proper response or it times 

out. Tesla’s submission is considered a 

complete petition as required by 49 CFR 

543.7 in that it meets the general 

requirements contained in 543.5 and the 

specific content requirements of 543.6. 

Tesla stated that the immobilizer 

functions will ensure maximum theft 

protection when the immobilizer is 

active, the vehicle is off and the doors 

are locked. Tesla stated that it will 

incorporate an additional security 

measure that performs when the car is 

unlocked and immobilization is 

deactivated. Specifically, 

immobilization will reactivate when 

there are no user inputs to the vehicle 

within a programmed period of time. 

Tesla stated that any attempt to operate 

the vehicle without performing and 

completing each task, will render the 

vehicle inoperable. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, Tesla provided 

information on the reliability and 

durability of its proposed device. To 

ensure reliability and durability of the 

device, Tesla conducted tests based on 

its own specified standards. Tesla 

provided a detailed list of the test 

conducted and stated that it believes 

that its device is reliable and durable 

because it complied with its own 

specific design standards. Additionally, 

Tesla stated that it has incorporated 

other measures of ensuring reliability 

and durability of the device. Those 

measures include the inaccessible 

location of all immobilizer device 

components within the passenger 

compartment of the vehicle or their 

containment in other vehicle 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES