[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44496-44501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18664]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 107

[Docket Nos. PHMSA-2009-0410 (HM-233B)]
RIN 2137-AE73


Hazardous Materials Transportation: Revisions of Special Permits 
Procedures; Response to Appeals; Corrections

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
DOT.

ACTION: Correcting Amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On January 5, 2011, PHMSA published a final rule under Docket 
Number PHMSA-2009-0410 (HM-233B) that amended the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations to revise the application procedures for special permits. 
Specifically, the revisions required an applicant to provide additional 
information about its operation to enable the agency to better evaluate 
the applicant's ability to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety 
and the safety impact of operations that would be authorized in the 
special permit. In response to appeals submitted by entities affected 
by the January 5 final rule, this final rule amends requirements and 
provides additional clarification to the January 5 final rule.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of these amendments is July 
26, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Andrews or Mr. T. Glenn 
Foster, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, 
PHH-12, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or Mr. Ryan Paquet, Approvals and 
Permits Division, (202) 366-4511, PHMSA, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, 
PHH-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Topics

I. Supplementary Background
II. Appeals to the Final Rule
    A. Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc.
    B. Institute of Makers of Explosives
    C. Lawrence Bierlein
III. Corrections and Amendments
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Statutory/Legal Authority for Rulemaking
    B. Executive Order 12866, 13356 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures
    C. Executive Order 13132
    D. Executive Order 13175
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT 
Procedures and Policies
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
    I. Privacy Act

I. Supplementary Background

    On January 5, 2011, PHMSA issued a final rule under Docket Number 
PHMSA-2009-0410 (HM-233B) (76 FR 454) amending the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) by amending the Hazardous 
Materials Regulations to revise the application procedures for special 
permits. Specifically, the revisions required an applicant to provide 
additional information about its operation to enable the agency to 
better evaluate the applicant's ability to demonstrate an equivalent 
level of safety and the safety impact of operations that would be 
authorized in the special permit. In addition, the January 5 final rule 
made revisions to the procedures for applying for a special permit. 
Changes made to these procedures include, but are not limited, 
requiring applicants to provide: All known locations where a special 
permit is used; the name of the company Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 
or president; a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System 
(DUNS) identifier; an estimated quantity of the hazardous material 
planned for transportation; an estimate of the number of operations 
expected to be conducted; a statement outlining the reason(s) the 
hazardous material is being transported by air if other modes are 
available; and substantiation that the proposed alternative will 
achieve a level of safety that is at least equal to that required by 
the regulation from which the special permit is sought.

II. Appeals to the Final Rule

    The following organizations and one individual submitted appeals to 
the January 5 final rule, in accordance with 49 CFR part 107: The 
Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA); 
The Institute for Makers of Explosives (IME); and Lawrence Bierlein on 
behalf of the Association of Hazmat Shippers. The appellants based 
their appeals on several aspects of the January 5 final rule, most 
notably objecting to the requirements that applicants provide: A list 
of all known locations where a special permit will be used; a DUNS 
number; the name of the CEO or President of the company; and the 
quantity of hazardous materials to be shipped.
    The appeals and issues of the appellants are discussed in detail 
below.

A. Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc.

    In its appeal, COSTHA states that it recognizes the importance of 
requiring applications for a special permit to include relevant and 
usable information in the special permit application. In support of its 
appeal, COSTHA requests that PHMSA re-evaluate several of the changes 
made to the special permits and procedures application process. These 
changes include requirements to: List all known locations where a 
special permit will be used; provide estimates of the number of 
operations expected to be conducted under a special permit; list the 
name of the CEO or president of the company; and provide a DUNS 
identifier.

[[Page 44497]]

    COSTHA also requests clarification on why additional data is needed 
for the application of a special permit. Specifically, COSTHA notes 
that PHMSA revised Sec.  107.105(a)(2) to require the name and physical 
address(es) of all known locations where the special permit would be 
used. COSTHA indicates that many special permits are utilized through a 
company's operational and distribution operations, and that this 
requirement may compel companies to report several hundred locations 
where the special permit may be used. In its appeal, COSTHA expresses 
the opinion that by requiring the reporting of all known locations a 
special permit will be used, PHMSA is suggesting that all locations 
will be subject to a possible fitness evaluation. COSTHA further states 
that if PHMSA is requiring all known locations for the purposes of 
enforcement, PHMSA needs to clarify whether updates must be made to the 
list after the application for a special permit has been submitted. For 
clarification, PHMSA's intent is for the applicant to provide a list of 
the initial locations a special permit is intended to be used at the 
time of the application. This list will help us track where various 
special permits are being utilized and assist the special permits 
division in ensuring that a special permit is being conducted in 
accordance with its parameters. For additional clarification, PHMSA is 
not requiring applicants to resubmit an application for those 
facilities using a special permit after an application has been 
submitted. Therefore, PHMSA is retaining the requirement for reporting 
all known locations where the special permit will be used because we 
believe it is necessary to adequately determine that all facilities 
conducting business under the special permit are able to demonstrate an 
equivalent level of safety as required by regulation. In addition, 
PHMSA is only requiring applicants for special permits to list those 
facilities where a special permit will be used that are known at the 
time of an application and updated at the time of renewal.
    COSTHA also expresses concern that PHMSA did not adequately address 
the additional burden to industry when adding the new requirements in 
the January 5 final rule. We disagree. PHMSA carefully examined the 
burden that the new requirements would have on special permit 
applicants and determined that, although we are requiring additional 
information, much of the data is already readily available to 
applicants. In addition, we believe that the additional time required 
to gather the information is greatly offset by the on-line application 
process capability provided in the January 5 final rule.
    In its appeal, COSTHA asks PHMSA to reconsider the requirement for 
applicants to provide the name of the CEO or president of the company. 
COSTHA notes that it is not uncommon for CEOs and presidents to change 
frequently due to the reorganization of a company or other reasons, and 
asks whether a special permit holder would be required to amend its 
application to reflect these changes. We agree. The intent of this 
requirement is to provide the identification of a senior official in 
the company who has responsibility for overseeing the overall hazardous 
materials regulatory compliance of the company, especially the 
operations under the terms of the special permit. Accordingly, we 
recognize that other corporate officials may be more appropriately 
identified. Therefore, PHMSA is revising this requirement to provide 
for the identification of a senior corporate official with such 
oversight duties.
    COSTHA's appeal asks PHMSA to reconsider the requirement for 
applicants to obtain and provide a DUNS identifier. COSTHA states that 
this number is typically used for credit and business transactions. 
COSTHA also adds that the adopted language does not indicate whether 
the DUNS identifier is optional. For clarification, the DUNS number is 
a mandatory requirement. PHMSA chose this identifier as it does not 
impose a cost on applicants to obtain it. The DUNS identifier will then 
be used as the identification number for a facility when renewing a 
special permit or applying for other new special permits. For 
additional clarification, in the case of companies who have multiple 
DUNS identifier, PHMSA is requiring that applicants provide only one 
DUNS identifier that is most applicable to the location for which the 
special permit is being utilized.
    Lastly, COSTHA asks PHMSA to reconsider the requirements in Sec.  
107.105(c)(10) that requires an estimate of the number of operations 
expected to be conducted or the number of shipments expected to be 
transported under a special permit. COSTHA states that it will be 
impossible for companies to accurately prognosticate the number of 
shipments offered. COSTHA also indicates that it is not satisfied with 
PHMSA's explanation in the preamble language in the January 5 final 
rule regarding why it needs applicants to provide an estimate of the 
number of shipments based on the best available information. We 
disagree. Collecting this additional information will help us to better 
ensure an equivalent level of safety is reached for each special permit 
application. Applicants must make a reasonable estimate of the amount 
of shipments that will take place over the duration of the special 
permit. PHMSA expects applicants to provide an estimate of the number 
of packages to be shipped for the duration of the special permit, based 
on the history of previous shipments transported under the terms of a 
special permit. In addition, if this is the initial application for a 
special permit, PHMSA believes that a reasonable estimate of the amount 
of shipments that will take place over the duration of the special 
permit will be sufficient when applying for a special permit.

B. Institute for Makers of Explosives

    In support of its appeal, IME requests that PHMSA re-evaluate 
several of the changes made to the special permits and procedures 
application process. These changes include the requirements to: list 
all known locations where a special permit will be used; provide a 
description of operational controls; and provide a statement outlining 
the reason(s) the hazardous material is being transported by air. IME 
also questions whether PHMSA conducted an adequate cost/benefit 
analysis in support of this final rule.
    In its appeal, IME questions why, in light of the exceptional 
safety record of the commercial explosive industry, PHMSA is imposing 
additional requirements without any stated foundation in underlying 
safety concerns, perceived risk, or incident data. Although these 
requirements apply to the commercial explosives industry, they apply 
equally to all entities applying for a special permit. These additional 
requirements will increase overall safety by providing us with a more 
accurate description of how an applicant has established a level of 
safety at least equivalent to the requirements of the HMR when 
transporting its particular commodity.
    IME also requests clarification of the phrase ``would be used'' as 
it pertains to the requirement in Sec.  107.105(a)(2), that 
``applicants for a special permit list all known locations where the 
special permit would be used.'' Specifically, IME asks whether this 
language refers to locations where vehicles are based, or to all 
locations where such a vehicle operates and/or delivers materials. For 
clarification, PHMSA is not requesting a list of facilities where 
hazardous materials moving under a special permit

[[Page 44498]]

are being delivered. Rather, we are seeking a list of locations where 
the special permit will initially be used at the time of application. 
Under the scenario of a truck operating under a special permit, we are 
only seeking the address of the location at which the truck is based.
    IME notes that in the January 5, 2011 final rule, we adopted new 
provision Sec.  107.105(c)(2) to require a description of all 
operational controls required for the mode(s) of transportation. IME 
asserts that this requirement is vague and it is unclear what level of 
detail is required of industry when reporting a description of these 
operational controls. For clarification, by requesting that applicants 
provide a description of operational controls, our intent is for 
applicants to provide any relevant schematics, diagrams, or description 
of the means that would be utilized under the conditions of a special 
permit, and will vary, based on the individual application. If an 
operational control is not applicable to execute the conditions of the 
special permit, such reasoning should be stated in the application. For 
example, an operational control would be to limit transportation to 
private motor carriers.
    IME also states that, in response to comments submitted to the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), PHMSA failed to illuminate the 
safety rationale for the provision in Sec.  107.105(c)(5) to require 
applicants who propose to ship via air to provide a statement outlining 
the reason(s) the hazardous material is being transported by air if 
other modes are available. IME questions the safety rationale for this 
requirement and suggests that this requirement could leave open the 
possibility that a special permit application for air transportation 
could be refused on non-safety related rationales, including cost and 
convenience. We disagree. PHMSA stresses that we have no intention of 
denying a special permit application simply based on the shipment being 
transported by air. PHMSA will continue to review the applicants' 
submission and approve those applications, regardless of the particular 
mode of transportation, that are determined to provide an equivalent 
level of safety.
    IME also questions PHMSA's analysis for the additional cost and 
time that will be incurred by applicants because of the increased 
special permit application requirements. IME adds that while it 
supports a simplified electronic application, the process of 
researching and assembling the additional information required will 
exceed PHMSA's estimate to complete the revised special permit 
application. We disagree. PHMSA did conduct a review of the information 
collection burden with respect to this rulemaking, and determined that 
while we expect some increased burden from the collection of additional 
information, the overall application process will become less 
burdensome, and therefore, less time-consuming with the introduction of 
the online application process.

C. Lawrence Bierlein, esq.

    PHMSA also received an appeal to the final rule from Lawrence W. 
Bierlein on February 2, 2011. In support of his appeal, Mr. Bierlein 
requests that PHMSA re-evaluate several of the changes made to the 
special permits and procedures application process. These changes 
include the requirements to: List all known locations where a special 
permit will be used; list the CEO or president of the company; provide 
a DUNS identifier; provide a hazardous materials registration number; 
provide a statement justifying shipments by air; provide a quantity or 
number of packages to be shipped; and provide a failure mode and effect 
analysis to justify a special permit proposal. In addition, Mr. 
Bierlein also raises questions pertaining to: Increased regulations 
without a safety benefit; compliance and inspection issues; excessive 
paperwork; fitness determinations; and the security of on-line 
applications.
    Mr. Bierlein questions whether the January 5 final rule has 
anything to do with safety in transportation, and states his belief 
that the goal of this final rule is to ease the burden on compliance 
inspectors and enforcement programs without regard to cost. He further 
adds that his clients do not believe any of the additional requirements 
falls within the ambit of the secretary's authority to regulate 
transportation under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA). 
We disagree. PHMSA is confident that the additional requirements in 
this final rule will help us to better determine if an applicant is 
meeting an equivalent of safety under a special permit.
    In his appeal, Mr. Bierlein adds that the new requirements in this 
final rule are outrageously excessive and will overburden PHMSA with 
paperwork. He adds that it will be impossible for PHMSA or its modal 
administrations to monitor substantially more locations given its 
already limited field staff. In addition, Mr. Bierlein states that 
requiring additional information will put a substantial burden on both 
PHMSA and the regulated community. We disagree. The additional 
information requested is vital to accurately assess an equivalent level 
of safety and the paperwork burden is greatly offset by the on-line 
application capability. Through the addition of an online application 
system, PHMSA will be dramatically reducing the amount of time required 
by applicants to apply for a special permit. In addition, the online 
application system, through increased automation, will dramatically 
reduce the amount of time required by PHMSA to review and process 
special permit application. The overall effect of this rulemaking will 
be a more efficient and timely special permit application process.
    Mr. Bierlein also states that PHMSA is putting too much emphasis on 
``fitness.'' He contends that while seriously unfit applicants should 
not hold a special permit authorization, adding more criteria to the 
fitness process is not necessary to avoid such a situation. While PHMSA 
acknowledges this argument, collecting this additional information will 
help us to better ensure an equivalent level of safety is reached for 
each special permit application.
    In his appeal, Mr. Bierlein also notes that in response to a public 
meeting held in August, 2010 on fitness, Mr. Bierlein filed a joint 
written statement declaring that the criteria for which field 
inspectors will determine safety and fitness are both unspecified and 
undefined. While PHMSA acknowledges his comment, the fitness criteria 
Mr. Bierlein describes is not within the scope of this rulemaking.
    In Mr. Bierlein's appeal, he notes that the new requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  107.105(a)(2), 107.107(b)(3), and 107.109(a)(3) ask for the 
physical address(es) of all known locations where the applicant will 
use the special permit, and states that each downstream distribution 
center, public warehouse, and forwarder is considered a user of the 
special permit. Mr. Bierlein questions PHMSA's need for such a 
voluminous amount of information. We disagree. The intent of this 
requirement is to identify the initial location where an applicant will 
use the special permit. It is not intended that all downstream entities 
that make subsequent shipments be identified. For example, for a 
special permit authorizing the use of a packaging not otherwise 
authorized under the HMR, the address of the initial entity(ies) that 
prepares the package under the special permit would be identified. 
Persons who merely receive and reship these packages are not required 
to be identified in the application or renewal.
    Mr. Bierlein's appeal asks us to reconsider the requirement for

[[Page 44499]]

applicants to provide the CEO or president of the company. Mr. Bierlein 
notes that in only the smallest companies would the CEO be aware of the 
hazardous materials transportation functions executed by that company, 
and communication should be between PHMSA and the person with the most 
knowledge about the special permit. We agree, and as previously 
mentioned, are revising this requirement to provide for the 
identification of a senior corporate official with such oversight 
duties.
    Mr. Bierlein questions the requirement to require the DUNS 
identifier because it has no value. We disagree. The DUNS identifier 
provides applicants with a unique number that will link all data for a 
particular company. This will ensure that all data on a company is 
identified with that company and prevent companies from being in the 
system with multiple variations of that company's spelling. For 
example, company ABCD, Inc. may be entered into these data systems in a 
number of ways, (i.e., A,B.C.D., Inc.; Alpha, Beta, Charlie, Delta, 
Inc.; ABCD Company; etc.)
    Mr. Bierlein also states that PHMSA should not require applicants 
to report their hazardous materials registration number and notes that 
there are many applicants for special permits who are not required to 
have registration numbers. Mr. Bierlein adds that the greatest number 
of users comes from government agencies such as the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA), and the Department of Defense (DOD), and requiring the 
registration numbers is useless and discriminatory against industry. We 
disagree. A large majority of special permit applications come from 
industry, not government. We also note that we are requiring only those 
facilities that already have a registration number to report that 
registration number as part of the application process. This 
information is necessary in order to ensure that applicants who are 
required to register have actually done so. For applicants not required 
to be registered, we are requiring only a simple statement indicating 
that registration is not required.
    Mr. Bierlein objects to the requirement that a statement be 
provided outlining the reason(s) the hazardous material is being 
transported by air if other modes are available. Mr. Bierlein expresses 
a belief that the implementation of this requirement is intended to 
restrict or prohibit hazardous materials air shipments being 
transported under a special permit. Mr. Bierlein also suggests that a 
more detailed, transparent, and substantive safety rationale be 
provided in a new rulemaking before air shipments are banned under a 
special permit. We disagree. A statement outlining the reason(s) the 
hazardous material is being transported is necessary to determine that 
an equivalent level of safety is being met for air transportation. 
PHMSA will continue to review the applicant's submissions and approve 
those applications based on a determination that it meets an equivalent 
level of safety. We stress that we have no intention of denying special 
permits simply based on the method of transportation.
    Mr. Bierlein objects to the requirement for applicants to use a 
failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), stating that it is excessive 
for special permits pertaining to minor variations from the hazardous 
materials regulations. Mr. Bierlein recommends we revise this 
requirement by limiting it to a short list of high hazard materials, or 
materials shipped in innovative packages exceeding 3,000 liters water 
capacity. We disagree. We maintain our belief that this information, 
along with the other required information, will help establish whether 
an applicant has met an equivalent level of safety for the safe 
transportation of hazardous materials under the guidelines of a special 
permit. For clarification, applicants are not required to use a FMEA, 
they are only required to prove with data or test results that they 
will achieve an equivalent level of safety equal to that required by 
regulation when seeking a special permit. Additionally, a FMEA was 
provided in the final rule as an example of how to meet this 
requirement.
    Mr. Bierlein also states there is no credible rationale for the 
requirement to provide a quantity of material or number of packages to 
be shipped, and contends that PHMSA's statement in the final rule that 
this information will enable us to better evaluate an applicant's 
ability to safely transport hazardous materials is self-serving without 
factual support. We disagree. We maintain our belief that this 
information, along with the other required information, will help 
establish whether an applicant has met an equivalent level of safety 
for the safe transportation of hazardous materials under the guidelines 
of a special permit.
    Lastly, Mr. Bierlein notes that PHMSA's on-line application process 
found on the PHMSA website continues to display the warning that it has 
been penetrated by hackers. For clarification, the statement on PHMSAs 
website reads, ``We have been alerted of a potential phishing website 
not associated with PHMSA collecting data for Fireworks (EX) Number 
Applications. It is highly advised that you do not submit application 
data on any other web site not sanctioned by PHMSA.'' This warning only 
advises applicants to use the official link on the PHMSA website to 
apply for special permits and not third party links to ensure 
applicants are submitting their data correctly to PHMSA. PHMSA's on-
line application process has not been hacked.

III. Corrections and Amendments

    In this final rule, we are making corrections to sections that were 
amended by the January 5, 2011 final rule by reinserting language that 
was inadvertently deleted in the final rule and clarifying that a table 
of contents is only required for paper submissions. None of the 
corrected sections are new requirements. The corrections are as 
follows:

Part 107

Section 107.105
    This section outlines the procedures for applying for a special 
permit. We are revising this section to clarify that a table of 
contents is only required for paper submissions.
Section 107.107
    This section outlines the procedures for applying for party status 
to a special permit. We are revising this section to reinsert language 
that was inadvertently removed in the January 5, 2011 final rule.

Part 109

Section 109
    This section outlines the procedures for applying for a renewal of 
a special permit. We are revising this section to reinsert language 
that was inadvertently removed in the January 5, 2011 final rule.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This final rule is published under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 
5103(b), which authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for 
the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous material in 
intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. 49 U.S.C. 5117(a) 
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue a special permit 
from a regulation prescribed in Sec. Sec.  5103(b), 5104, 5110, or 5112 
of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law to a person

[[Page 44500]]

transporting, or causing to be transported, hazardous material in a way 
that achieves a safety level at least equal to the safety level 
required under the law, or consistent with the public interest, if a 
required safety level does not exist. The final rule amends the 
regulations to revise the special permit application requirements and 
provide an on-line capability for applications.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action 
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This final rule 
is not considered a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to regulate in 
the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and 
to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on society. As 
discussed in this rulemaking, PHMSA is revising the special permits 
application procedures by requiring additional, more detailed 
information to enable the agency to strengthen its oversight of the 
special permits program. PHMSA recognizes there may be additional costs 
related to the proposals to require additional information in the 
special permits application procedures. However, we believe these costs 
are minimized by the proposals to allow for electronic means for all 
special permits and approvals actions, and the proposals to authorize 
electronic means as an alternative to written means of communication. 
Taken together, the provisions of this final rule will promote the 
continued safe transportation of hazardous materials while reducing 
paperwork burden on applicants and administrative costs for the agency.

C. Executive Order 13132

    This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This 
final rule would preempt state, local and Indian tribe requirements but 
does not contain any regulation that has substantial direct effects on 
the states, the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. Federal hazardous 
material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, contains an express 
preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) preempting state, local and 
Indian tribe requirements on certain covered subjects.

D. Executive Order 13175

    This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'''). Because this final 
rule does not have tribal implications and does not impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, the funding and 
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT 
Procedures and Policies

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-611) requires each 
agency to analyze regulations and assess their impact on small 
businesses and other small entities to determine whether the rule is 
expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This final rule proposes revisions to current special permit 
application requirements that may increase the time that would be 
required to complete such an application. Although many of the 
applicants may be small businesses or other small entities, PHMSA 
believes that the addition of an on-line application option will 
significantly reduce the burden imposed by the application 
requirements. Therefore, PHMSA certifies that the provisions of this 
final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of 
$141.3 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: 
State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private 
sector.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule imposes no new information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements.

H. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 107

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials 
transportation.

    In consideration of the foregoing, we are amending 49 CFR part 107 
as follows:

PART 107--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 107 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; Public Law 101-410 
section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Public Law 104-121 sections 212-
213; Public Law 104-134 section 31001; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.

0
2. In Sec.  107.105, paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) are revised, and 
paragraph (a)(1)(iv) is added, to read as follows:


Sec.  107.105  Application for special permit.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Be submitted with any attached supporting documentation by 
facsimile (fax) to: (202) 366-3753 or (202) 366-3308;
    (iii) Be submitted electronically by e-mail to: 
[email protected]; or
    (iv) Be submitted using PHMSA's online system (table of contents 
omitted) at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/sp-a.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  107.107, paragraph (b)(3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  107.107  Application of party status.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The application must state the name, mailing address, physical 
address(es) of all known locations where the special permit would be 
used, e-mail address (if available), and telephone number of the 
applicant. If the applicant is not an individual, the application must 
state the company name, mailing address, physical address(es) of all 
known locations where the special permit would be used, e-mail address 
(if available), and telephone number of an individual designated as the 
point of contact for the applicant for all purposes related to the 
application, the name of the company Chief Executive Officer (CEO), 
president, or ranking executive officer

[[Page 44501]]

and the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S) 
identifier. In addition, each applicant must state why party status to 
the special permit is needed and must submit a certification of 
understanding of the provisions of the special permit to which party 
status is being requested.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  107.109, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  107.109  Application for renewal.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The application must state the name, mailing address, physical 
address(es) of all known new locations not previously identified in the 
application where the special permit would be used and all locations 
not previously identified where the special permit was used, e-mail 
address (if available), and telephone number of the applicant. If the 
applicant is not an individual, the application must state the name, 
mailing address, physical address(es) of all known new locations not 
previously identified in the application where the special permit would 
be used and all locations not previously identified where the special 
permit was used, e-mail address (if available), and telephone number of 
an individual designated as the point of contact for the applicant for 
all purposes related to the application, the name of the company Chief 
Executive Officer (CEO), president, or ranking executive officer, and 
the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S) 
identifier. In addition, each applicant for renewal of party status 
must state why party status to the special permit is needed and must 
submit a certification of understanding of the provisions of the 
special permit to which party status is being requested.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 18, 2011 under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Cynthia Quarterman,
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-18664 Filed 7-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P