Document ID: PHMSA-2010-0353-0025
Agency: phmsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Clarification of Fireworks Approvals Policy
Posted Date: 2011-06-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38053-38058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 173

[Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0353; Notice No. 10-9]

Clarification of the Fireworks Approvals Policy

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

ACTION: Clarification.

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

[[Page 38054]]

SUMMARY: In this document, PHMSA is responding to comments received 
from its initial Notice No. 10-9 clarifying PHMSA's policy regarding 
the fireworks approvals program. Furthermore, in this document PHMSA is 
restating our policy clarification in that we will issue firework 
classification approvals only to fireworks manufacturers, and accept 
firework classification applications only from fireworks manufacturers 
or their designated agents. This policy clarification is intended to 
enhance safety by ensuring accountability of the manufacture of the 
device, and reducing the number of duplicate applications and approvals 
being issued for identical fireworks devices.

DATES: The policy clarification discussed in this document is effective 
June 29, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Paquet, Director, Approvals 
and Permits Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366-
4512, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
III. List of Commenters, Beyond-the-Scope Comments, and General 
Comments
IV. Summary of Policy Clarification

I. Introduction

    With regard to fireworks approvals, the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180), Section 173.56(j)(3) states 
that ``[t]he manufacturer applies in writing to the Associate 
Administrator following the applicable requirements in APA Standard 87-
1, and is notified in writing by the Associate Administrator that the 
fireworks have been classed, approved, and assigned an EX number.''
    On December 17, 2010, PHMSA published the initial Notice No. 10-9 
(75 FR 79085) clarifying its policy, consistent with the HMR, to issue 
firework classification approvals only to fireworks manufacturers, and 
accept firework classification applications only from fireworks 
manufacturers or their designated agents. The Notice also sought 
comment on that clarification. In today's document, PHMSA is responding 
to those comments and restating its policy clarification on the 
fireworks approval program.
    The comments received covered various topics, including the 
economic impact, language barrier issues, jurisdictional issues, 
implementation time, and the legal issues associated with the Notice 
itself. Furthermore, commenters also expressed concern on how the 
policy would affect the EX application volume, the control and 
distribution of fireworks designs, PHMSA's ability to ensure compliance 
with and to enforce the clarification, and the relationship with other 
Federal regulations.

II. Background

    The pyrotechnic industry is a global logistics supply chain 
comprised of mostly foreign fireworks manufacturers and domestic 
importers, retailers, distributors, and consumers. The transportation 
of an explosive (fireworks device) requires an EX classification 
approval issued by PHMSA, commonly referred to as an EX number. The EX 
number is a unique identifier that indicates the device has been 
classed and approved for transportation in the U.S., and is specific to 
a particular device as specified in 49 CFR 173.56(j) and the APA 
Standard 87-1.
    PHMSA understands that it is a common industry practice for 
fireworks devices produced by one manufacturer to be marketed and sold 
under different trade names. Further, each retailer, importer or 
distributor, in addition to the manufacturer, applies for and receives 
an EX classification approval for the identical firework device. This 
practice has resulted in PHMSA processing multiple applications and 
issuing multiple approvals for the same firework device.
    For some time, PHMSA has accepted fireworks applications from 
manufacturers, importers, retailers and distributors, and has issued 
the classification approvals to those stakeholders in the pyrotechnic 
industry. This redundant and burdensome process does not promote the 
safe transportation of explosives (fireworks devices); instead, it 
impedes the conduct of business for both the fireworks industry and 
PHMSA.
    In this document, PHMSA is responding to comments on its policy 
clarification to issue fireworks classification approvals only to 
fireworks manufacturers. PHMSA believes that this policy will enhance 
safety by ensuring accountability of the manufacture of the device and 
reducing the number of duplicate applications and approvals being 
issued for identical fireworks devices. The manufacturer of the device 
is the only entity that can ensure the approved formulation is the 
actual formulation used to create the device.

III. List of Commenters, Beyond-the-Scope Comments, and General 
Comments

    PHMSA received 18 comments in response to the initial Notice No. 
10-9. Some of the commenters requested that we expedite the issuance of 
this document to finalize the clarification of the policy. We recognize 
their concerns and have made every effort to publish this document in 
an expeditious manner. While a minority of the commenters supported the 
clarification to the fireworks policy in initial Notice 10-9, a 
majority of the commenters had reservations about it. The comments, as 
submitted to the docket for the initial Notice No. 10-9 (Docket No. 
PHMSA-2010-0353), may be accessed via  http://www.regulations.gov and 
were submitted by the following individuals, companies and 
associations:

(1) Ms. Elizabeth Knauss; PHMSA-2010-0353-0002
(2) Huisky Trading Co., Ltd.; PHMSA-2010-0353-0003
(3) Extreme Pyrotechnics LLC; PHMSA-2010-0353-0004
(4) Rozzi's Famous Fireworks; PHMSA-2010-0353-0005
(5) Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC); PHMSA-2010-0353-0006
(6) Kellner's Fireworks Inc.; PHMSA-2010-0353-0007
(7) B.J. Alan Company; PHMSA-2010-0353-0008
(8) DG Advisor, LLC; PHMSA-2010-0353-0009
(9) International Fireworks Shippers Alliance (IFSA); PHMSA-2010-0353-
0010
(10) Law Office of Douglas Mawhorr; PHMSA-2010-0353-0011
(11) Pyrotechnics Guild International; PHMSA-2010-0353-0012
(12) Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME); PHMSA-2010-0353-0013
(13) National Fireworks Association; PHMSA-2010-0353-0014
(14) Galaxy Fireworks, Inc.; PHMSA-2010-0353-0017
(15) American Pyrotechnics Association (APA); PHMSA-2010-0353-0018
(16) Alliance of Special Effects & Pyrotechnic Operators, Inc. (ASEPO); 
PHMSA-2010-0353-0019
(17) Fireworks Over America; PHMSA-2010-0353-0021
(18) American Promotional Events Inc.; PHMSA-2010-0353-0023

Beyond-the-Scope Comments

    PHMSA received ten comments beyond the scope of this document. One 
commenter requests PHMSA consider waste management of used or defective 
fireworks when proposing any amendments to regulations related to

[[Page 38055]]

the transport of fireworks. This document does not propose any 
regulatory amendments; rather, we are clarifying existing policy. While 
PHMSA agrees environmental impacts should be considered when proposing 
amendments to regulations, no regulatory changes were proposed in the 
Notice, and therefore, waste management of fireworks is beyond the 
scope of this document.
    PHMSA received nine comments suggesting alternative approaches 
aimed at improving the current fireworks approvals process. These 
alternative approaches ranged from small modifications and improvements 
to the current system, to the complete elimination of the requirement 
for EX numbers for consumer fireworks. PHMSA values input from the 
stakeholders involved in the fireworks approval process; however, the 
alternative approaches suggested are beyond the scope of this document 
and will not be addressed here. The scope of this document is limited 
to PHMSA's issuance of fireworks approvals only to fireworks 
manufacturers. While we agree that certain alternative approaches to 
fireworks approvals merit PHMSA's consideration, we urge those 
commenters who submitted these beyond-the-scope approaches to request a 
change in the regulations by filing the recommendations as petitions 
for rulemakings in accordance with 49 CFR 106.95 and 106.100.

General Comments

Implementation Concerns

    PHMSA received comments both in support of and in opposition to the 
policy clarification in the initial Notice No. 10-9. A number of these 
concerns dealt specifically with how PHMSA's implementation of the 
clarification would affect the pyrotechnics industry. These comments 
are discussed in detail below.
    Implementation. Commenters suggested that if the clarification 
presented in the initial Notice No. 10-9 were adopted, there would need 
to be a substantial implementation time. PHMSA received two comments 
concerned with the amount of time for implementing the clarification 
and the effect on industry.
    PHMSA understands the concerns the fireworks industry has expressed 
about the ramifications of implementing this action. In response to 
these concerns PHMSA has devised an implementation plan that addresses 
these concerns (see section: IV. Summary of Policy Clarification). As 
of the date of the publication of this document in the Federal 
Register, classification approval applications will be issued only to 
the manufacturer. Fireworks approvals applications submitted on behalf 
of entities other than the manufacturer to PHMSA prior to the 
publication date of this document in the Federal Register (i.e. already 
accepted by PHMSA) will continue to be reviewed, processed, and if 
approved, issued to the applicant.
    Impact on Fireworks EX Application Volume. Specifically, PHMSA 
received comments regarding what impact the clarification would have on 
the actual volume of fireworks EX applications received. PHMSA received 
comments from seven companies opposing the policy clarification 
asserting that there will be an increase in the volume of applications 
that PHMSA will have to process. However, one company supported the 
policy clarification indicating that it is an ``effort to reduce 
redundancy and increase process efficiency.''
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenters' concerns pertaining to 
application volume. We believe that this is a safety and data 
management issue. Furthermore, we do not make policy decisions of this 
type based on the potential volume of applications. Nonetheless, PHMSA 
believes that there would not be an appreciable increase to the number 
of firework applications received. However, if such an increase occurs, 
it will be temporary and over time application volume will decrease.
    One commenter asserted that an EX approval allows multiple 
manufacturers to use the same EX number. This is incorrect. The use of 
the same EX number by multiple manufacturers constitutes a violation of 
the HMR. Only the manufacturer identified in the approval application 
is authorized to use the assigned EX number. PHMSA does not issue the 
same EX approval number to more than one holder/manufacturer.
    Language Barriers. A majority of fireworks manufacturers are 
located outside the U.S. where English is not a first language. Several 
commenters expressed concern that implementing the policy clarification 
could be complicated by language barriers present between PHMSA 
officials and foreign fireworks manufacturers. Commenters cited 
examples of Chinese companies not understanding why an application is 
rejected and not being able to correct errors when re-applying.
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenters' concerns pertaining to a 
language barrier. All companies based outside of the U.S. are required 
to have a U.S. designated agent (see Sec.  105.40) to support the 
company in various issues, including language translation. PHMSA has 
issued many approvals to foreign companies without any confusion or 
misunderstanding as a result of language barriers. When language 
barriers arise, it is the U.S. designated agent's responsibility to 
resolve any communication problems and technical issues.
    Control and Distribution of Fireworks Designs. Three commenters 
addressed the effect of initial Notice No. 10-9 on the control and 
distribution of fireworks design types. U.S. fireworks distributors 
expressed their concern that they will no longer have exclusive control 
over their firework products if the clarification presented in the 
initial Notice No. 10-9 were implemented. These commenters oppose the 
policy clarification based on possible trademark infringement. The 
commenters who addressed this issue indicated that, if adopted, the 
policy clarification would deprive them of their ability ``to trademark 
private label products that are proprietary to U.S. companies.''
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenters that the policy 
clarification would result in trademark infringement. The holder of the 
EX approval for a firework device bears no relevance to a company's 
protected trademark. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office defines a 
trademark as ``a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination 
thereof, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of 
one party from those of others.'' Trademark infringement occurs when a 
competitor uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to the 
protected trademark. An EX approval number is assigned by the Associate 
Administrator to an explosive device that has been evaluated under 49 
CFR 173.56. Fireworks EX approval applications are reviewed by 
transportation specialists who evaluate the composition and safety of 
the firework device. Thus, a protected trademark and an EX approval 
number are issued separately by different U.S. agencies for distinctly 
separate purposes, which are mutually exclusive.
    Ability to Ensure Compliance/Enforce. Various commenters suggested 
that the policy clarification in the initial Notice No. 10-9 could 
prove difficult for PHMSA to enforce. In addition, commenters suggested 
that the policy clarification could decrease regulatory clarity and 
make it more difficult for the regulated entities to comply with the 
HMR.
    One commenter opposed the policy clarification expressing concern 
that by placing the maintenance of the EX

[[Page 38056]]

number wholly in the hands of the manufacturer, the U.S. user or seller 
has no capacity to assure that the numbers are being administered and 
applied correctly. They state: ``it is the importers and end users who 
are transporting the products in the U.S., not the manufacturers. The 
importers and end users are the ones who must demonstrate compliance.''
    While firework classification approvals will only be issued to 
fireworks manufacturers, PHMSA will accept fireworks approval 
applications from the manufacturer's U.S. designated agent on behalf of 
the manufacturer, as well as the manufacturer itself. PHMSA disagrees 
that the burden to follow the requirements of the approval falls solely 
on the importer or end user once it becomes part of the U.S. 
transportation system. In fact, at that point it is too late to correct 
a defect with the firework device or any improper use of an EX number. 
While it is incumbent upon the manufacturer and the importer to ensure 
the fireworks device meets the EX approval requirements, it is not 
PHMSA's intent to regulate the relationship between these two entities. 
All participants throughout the supply chain will be held accountable 
for their regulatory responsibility. Furthermore, Sec.  171.2(b) 
provides that ``each offeror is responsible only for the specific pre-
transportation functions that it performs or is required to perform, 
and each offeror may rely on information provided by another offeror, 
unless that offeror knows or, a reasonable person, acting in the 
circumstances and exercising reasonable care, would have knowledge that 
the information provided by the other offeror is incorrect.''
    One commenter opposed the policy clarification because it is 
unclear how PHMSA will obtain new resources to be able to conduct a 
``fitness review'' on each factory in China.
    PHMSA currently conducts fitness reviews on foreign entities for 
many types of approval applications. Our standard procedure, after we 
determine that an application is complete, is to evaluate the 
application to determine whether the Applicant is qualified to hold the 
type of approval for which it has applied, in this case, a fireworks 
approval. During the review, PHMSA checks the application to determine 
whether the Applicant followed the requirements of the HMR. While we do 
not typically conduct an onsite inspection of the Applicant's 
facilities prior to granting or denying an approval application for 
fireworks, we may conduct an inspection if necessary to determine the 
Applicant's fitness. Furthermore, the Associate Administrator may 
modify, suspend, or terminate an approval in accordance with 49 CFR 
107.121 if necessary to avoid a risk of significant harm to persons or 
property.
    One commenter opposed the policy clarification because it is likely 
to divert PHMSA's scarce resources and PHMSA does not have the means to 
develop a global investigative capability. The commenter claimed this 
would allow for ``front'' or ``shell'' companies to exploit the policy 
clarification.
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenter about its global 
investigative capability. Part of PHMSA's mission is to implement the 
best course of action to support the safety of the products produced 
through shared responsibility and focused accountability. PHMSA 
currently conducts international as well as domestic inspections. If a 
company is found to be noncompliant with the HMR, PHMSA may impose 
civil penalties or seek criminal prosecution for knowing, willful, or 
reckless violations of the HMR.
    One commenter opposed the policy clarification because it would 
potentially complicate the approvals process.
    PHMSA does not agree that the policy clarification would complicate 
the approvals process. Rather, we believe that the policy clarification 
simplifies the process. By issuing one EX number for each type of 
firework device, as opposed to issuing multiple EX numbers for the same 
fireworks device, we will reduce redundancy of approvals for the same 
device and increase the overall efficiency of the approvals process. 
Additionally, by ensuring uniform classification of fireworks devices 
and eliminating application duplicity, we will reduce the potential 
risks of the shipment of unapproved fireworks, thereby enhancing the 
safe transport of fireworks devices.
    Regulatory Clarity. PHMSA received several comments concerning 
regulatory clarity. Commenters are concerned about the definition of 
manufacturer being different between regulatory areas. One commenter 
suggested that PHMSA would have a different definition of 
``manufacturer'' for entities who construct packages than that used to 
define a fireworks device maker. One commenter states ``PHMSA would be 
creating inconsistencies where a firework approval obtained through 
Sec.  173.56(f) could only be held by the person who formulates or 
produces the firework while no such limit would apply for fireworks 
approved through the process used for other explosives.''
    PHMSA disagrees with the commenters because it is within the 
agency's discretion to interpret its own regulations and clarify our 
policies. However, we may in the future consider adding a definition 
for manufacturer through notice and comment rulemaking.

Economic and Transportation Effects

    Several commenters expressed concern about the possible economic 
ramifications caused by the implementation of the fireworks approval 
policy clarification. Although most of the comments received addressed 
economic impacts indirectly, five commenters explicitly addressed the 
economic impact of the policy clarification.
    Economic Impact. PHMSA received several comments claiming that if 
PHMSA issues approvals only to manufacturers, it will increase costs, 
discourage competition, and interfere with trade and commerce. 
Commenters expressed specific concerns that companies could go out of 
business and proprietary information could be revealed.
    PHMSA does not believe the policy clarification pertaining to the 
fireworks approvals process will affect costs, competition, or 
interfere with trade and commerce because we are not changing the 
regulations pertaining to fireworks approvals. Rather, we are 
clarifying the existing regulations by advising the public that a 
manufacturer, or its designated U.S. agent, may submit an approvals 
application. After review and approval, PHMSA will issue an EX number 
to the manufacturer specified in the approval application. Despite not 
being the approval holder, importers and end users may still offer and 
transport fireworks devices under the EX approval issued to the 
manufacturer.
    Commenters also expressed concern that proprietary information may 
be released to the public. To determine whether records are releasable, 
PHMSA complies with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 
section 552, and any other applicable laws. Should PHMSA receive a FOIA 
request for information marked ``confidential commercial'' or where 
PHMSA has some other reason to believe that confidential commercial 
information may be contained in the record, Departmental regulations in 
49 CFR Sec.  7.17 require that PHMSA consults with the submitter of the 
information to provide an opportunity to submit any written objections 
and specific grounds for non-disclosure before PHMSA determines whether 
to release the information.

[[Page 38057]]

    Transportation Safety. Four commenters objected to the initial 
Notice No. 10-9 on the grounds that no safety benefit would be realized 
from the policy clarification in the application process. One commenter 
stated ``because it is required to identify the product manufacturer on 
all applications, the Agency has access to manufacturer information 
regardless of whether the approval is issued to an importer, exporter 
and/or distributor.'' PHMSA disagrees with the commenter's assertion. 
Issuing EX numbers exclusively to manufacturers will provide greater 
accountability on the part of the manufacturer.
    One commenter stated ``we are not aware of any situations where 
there was a safety or transportation problem attributable to the fact 
that the EX approval was obtained by the entity that worked with the 
factory and was responsible for the fireworks once they arrived in the 
United States.'' While PHMSA agrees with the commenter about the safety 
record of fireworks in transportation, we believe that this policy 
clarification will nonetheless make fireworks device transportation 
safer. The manufacturer of the device is the only entity that can 
ensure the formulation that is approved is the actual formulation used 
to create the device. Furthermore, eliminating redundant applications 
for the same fireworks device will reduce the potential risk of 
unapproved fireworks being transported, thereby enhancing the overall 
safety of the fireworks devices in transport.

Administrative Issues

    Several commenters expressed concern over the manner in which PHMSA 
is clarifying its fireworks approvals policy. Other commenters raised 
concerns regarding the effect the policy clarification would have on 
other sections of the HMR. A couple of commenters expressed legal 
concerns regarding the policy clarification. These comments are 
discussed in detail below.
    Manner in which the Clarification was Presented. Three commenters 
expressed concern with how we presented our policy clarification. 
Specifically, these commenters suggested that the policy clarification 
presented in that Notice may be better addressed in a rulemaking action 
where comments can be addressed in a more substantive manner. 
Commenters claimed that PHMSA is indicating a regulatory change through 
that Notice, and thus, should conduct notice and comment rulemaking.
    PHMSA is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act to 
initiate informal rulemaking to clarify a policy. Section 173.56(j) 
specifically states that the manufacturer applies in writing and is 
notified by the Associate Administrator that the fireworks have been 
classed, approved, and assigned an EX-number. It is the responsibility 
of the manufacturer to sign the application and certify that the device 
conforms to the APA Standard 87-1, which PHMSA has incorporated by 
reference in the HMR. In this document, we are clarifying our policy to 
issue EX approvals to manufacturers only to coincide with the plain 
language of Sec.  173.56(j).
    Effects on the HMR. While, as cited above, some commenters were 
concerned that the clarification would result in ambiguity in the 
regulations pertaining to the definition of different types of 
manufacturers, (e.g., fiberboard box manufacturers and fireworks 
manufacturers), commenters also raised concern regarding the potential 
precedent set by the policy clarification in the initial Notice No. 10-
9. Specifically, commenters maintained that the clarification presented 
in the initial Notice No. 10-9 could affect the definition of 
``manufacturer'' in other parts of the HMR. In addition, concern was 
raised that this could set a precedent for how explosives, other than 
fireworks, are treated. One commenter, for example, is concerned that 
this policy may affect requirements for package manufacturers.
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenters that this document would 
affect other provisions of the HMR. In this document we are clarifying 
our policy with respect to fireworks approvals only.
    Legal Issues. PHMSA received a comment opposing the policy 
clarification based on the doctrine of laches. The commenter indicated 
that PHMSA's ``neglect to assert a right, the lapse of time associated 
therewith and resultant disadvantage to another bars the neglecting 
party from asserting the right.''
    PHMSA does not agree with the commenter's application of the 
doctrine of laches. Laches is the equitable counterpart to the statute 
of limitations that bars a claim when a delay in bringing the claim is 
unreasonable and results in prejudice to the opposing party. In 
general, laches cannot be imputed to the Federal government and is not 
applicable to an agency's determination to clarify policy.
    Another commenter opposed the policy clarification asserting 
because PHMSA has not thoroughly explained its reasons for changing the 
policy.
    PHMSA agrees that we should provide a reasoned basis for the policy 
clarification, but disagrees that we have failed to do so. As stated in 
the initial Notice No. 10-9, we believe issuing fireworks approvals 
only to manufacturers will enhance safety by ensuring uniform 
classification of fireworks devices, eliminating application duplicity, 
and minimizing the potential risks of the shipment of unapproved 
fireworks.
    PHMSA received multiple comments opposing the policy clarification 
based on our lack of jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers.
    PHMSA agrees that we lack jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers 
who manufacture fireworks, but do not offer them for transportation in 
commerce. However, the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law 
(49 U.S.C. 5101, et. seq.) provides the authority to regulate the safe 
transportation of hazardous materials in interstate, intrastate, and 
foreign commerce. If a foreign manufacturer does not merely manufacture 
the fireworks, but is also an offeror and offers fireworks for 
transportation in commerce within the U.S., then our regulations would 
apply and the foreign manufacturer may be held accountable for 
violations of the HMR. Furthermore, foreign manufacturers may have an 
economic incentive to obtain EX approvals given the market in the U.S. 
for foreign fireworks.
    One commenter opposed the policy clarification based on Executive 
Order No. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, dated 
January 18, 2011. The commenter indicated that, if adopted the policy 
clarification would not support the spirit of the Executive Order and 
would create more burdens on both the regulated industry and 
government.
    PHMSA does not agree that the policy clarification would contradict 
the spirit of the Executive Order, which addresses an agency's adoption 
of new regulations and does not restrict the agency's ability to 
interpret its existing regulations or to make policy clarifications.

IV. Summary of Policy Clarification

    Based on the comments received and our responses to those comments, 
PHMSA will proceed to implement the policy clarification discussed in 
this document. The implementation strategy is detailed below:
    1. All EX numbers issued prior to June 29, 2011 will continue to 
remain in effect.
    2. All pending fireworks approval applications submitted to PHMSA 
prior to June 29, 2011 will continue to be

[[Page 38058]]

reviewed, processed, and if approved, issued to the applicant.
    3. All fireworks approval applications submitted to PHMSA after 
June 29, 2011 will only be accepted from manufacturers or their 
designated agents. Designated agents, as specified in Sec.  105.40, may 
submit applications on behalf of the manufacturer as long as the agent 
or the manufacturer signs the application and certifies that the device 
for which approval is requested conforms to APA Standard 87-1, and that 
the descriptions and technical information contained in the application 
are complete and accurate, in accordance with Sec.  173.56(j)(3). PHMSA 
will review and process each application, and if approved, will issue 
an EX approval number only to the manufacturer specified in the 
application.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2011 under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-15969 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P