# ENPAC, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation **Citation:** 11-0259 **Type / status:** guidance / guidance **Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration **Effective:** Not stated **Published:** 2011-12-22 11-0259 response to ENPAC, LLC concerning 172.702, 178.503, 178.601. ## Document text <<>> U.S. Department Washington. DC 20590 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration DEC 2 2 2011 Timothy Reed Chief Financial Officer ENPAC,LLC 34355 Vokes Drive Eastlake, OH 44095 Reference No.: 11-0259 Dear Mr. Reed: This is in response to your October 18, 2011 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You ask several questions pertaining to the M number marking on a packaging, training of subcontractors, and design qualification testing of a packaging. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows: Q1. Should an M number assigned to your company be used for packagings manufactured by a subcontractor? A1. Another company cannot use an M number assigned to your company. In accordance with § 178.503(a)(8), if a subcontractor manufactures your company's packagings, they must mark the packaging with their name and address, ifpermitted for the particular type of packaging, or they must mark the packaging with an M number issued to them. Q2. Who is responsible for the required hazmat training of a subcontractor's employees? A2. In accordance with §172.702(a), the hazmat employer is responsible for ensuring that each of its hazmat employees is trained. However, § 172. 702( c) provides flexibility on who can provide the training. The training may be provided by your company, the subcontractor, or by some other public or private source. Q3. Should the subcontractor obtain an M number and should the packagings be marked with the subcontractor's M number? A3. See AI. Q4. Is design qualification testing of the packaging required when a subcontractor begins production? <<>> A4. Section 178.601(c)(I) defines "design qualification testing" as testing for each new or different packaging at the start of production ofthat packaging. The use of a subcontractor to manufacture an existing packaging does not render the packaging "new" or "different." Therefore, if the packaging has already passed design qualification testing, a subcontractor is not required to conduct the tests at the start ofproduction ofthe same packaging. This does not, however, relieve the responsibility for conducting the periodic retesting required by §178.601 (e) ofthe packagings manufactured by the subcontractor. Q5. Is design qualification testing ofthe packaging required for each change of subcontractors? A5. See A4. I hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. SOl:1ti' · Delmer Billings ~ Senior Regulatory Advisor Standards and Rulemaking Division <<>> ENPAC, L.L.C. October 18, 2011 US Dept of Transportation PHMSA Office of Hazardous Materials Standards Attn: PHH-10 East Building 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 To Whom It May Concern: ENPAC would like to have a formal interpretation made regarding the proper M number to use on the marking of a product. ENPAC is planning on outsourcing one of its products to a subcontractor to manufacture. ENPAC will continue to own the mold/tooling used to manufacture the product and will train the manufacturer on how to manufacture the products. The subcontractor will purchase the materials needed and provide the value added (labor). Testing of the product will be made by an independent testing facility. The following questions need to be interpreted: . 1. Should the packaging use an M number assjgne~ to ENPAC for the subcontractor's address since ENPAC owns the mold? 2. Who is responsible for the hazmat training of the subcontractor's employees? Is it based on the M number used on the packaging? 3. Should the subcontractor obtain an M number and should the packaging be marked using the subcontractor's M-number since the labor is provided by the subcontractor? 4. Is design qualification testing required for the change to a subcontractor even though the same resin will be used? 5. Is design qualification testing required for each change of subcontractors even though the same resin will be used? If you have any questions, call me at your convenience at (440) 975-0070, x334 or email me at timr@enpac.com. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Timothy Reed Chief Financial Officer ENPAC, LLC . . . . . . . . .. . ... . ... . . . . .... .. 34355 VOKES DRIVE, EASTLAKE, OHIO 44095 PH (440)975-0070 FAX (440)975-0047 ## Provenance - Official: Yes - Source: - Source ID: `phmsa` - SHA-256: `2bcdec446b05254df0dc1e881df165058e7c328d60be307b0c4e9d748605fcd5` - Retrieved: 2026-08-20T00:59:31.977Z - Exported: 2026-08-22T06:56:41.107Z - Document slug: `phmsa-interpretation-11-0259` ### Source metadata ```json { "materialSubtype": "interpretation", "interpretationArea": "hazardous_materials", "representation": "full_text_from_official_pdf", "companies": [ "ENPAC, LLC" ], "individuals": [ "Mr. Timothy Reed" ], "refIds": [ "11-0259" ], "catalogDates": [ "2011-12-22" ], "catalogParts": [ 172, 178 ], "catalogRowCount": 3, "sourceRecordUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/node/55731" ], "linkedAttachmentUrls": [], "unavailableResponseUrls": [], "duplicateRepresentationUrls": [], "citedSections": [ "172.702", "172.702(a)", "178.503", "178.503(a)(8)", "178.601", "178.601(c)(I)" ], "catalogPageUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/172702", "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/178503", "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/178601" ], "pdfUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2011/110259.pdf" ], "representations": [ { "viewUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2011/110259.pdf", "detailUrl": null, "detailHtmlPath": null, "pdfUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2011/110259.pdf", "pdfArtifactPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/11-0259-0c45b43efc.pdf", "pdfArtifactSha256": "27e535e6c046989a4deab2951189e50e4b14e77dc3b5d8b32c92bc52de9be5e9", "extractedTextPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/11-0259-0c45b43efc.v2.txt", "extractedTextSha256": "227718657f0f205bcc7652d1e869571823d78e85f1a338eb0b49178b3bfb2b76", "pageCount": 3, "extractionVersion": 2 } ], "caveat": "Interpretations apply regulations to the facts presented and do not create independently enforceable requirements.", "jurisdiction": "US" } ```