Pasar al contenido principal
Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: aiam0692

Mr. O. L. Pierson, Legal Department, Rohm and Haas Company, Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA, 19105; Mr. O. L. Pierson
Legal Department
Rohm and Haas Company
Independence Mall West
Philadelphia
PA
19105;

Dear Mr. Pierson: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1972, in which you as certain questions regarding Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' the proposed amendment to that standard (36 F.R. 9565, May 26, 1971), and future requirements for labeling of safety glazing. Your questions are restated below, followed in each case by our response.; >>>1. We have heard that clarifying amendments for MVSS 302 are bein prepared and may be promulgated soon. Can you tell us approximately when such information may be published?; An amendment to Standard No. 302, based upon the notice of May 26 1971, and other information that has been presented to the agency is currently in preparation, and we expect its issuance within the next several weeks.; 2. We are concerned about 1973 requirements for labeling of safet glazing. Will your identification requirements prevail over state regulations which require additional and/or different information?; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that Federa motor vehicle safety standards preempt State requirements to the extent that those requirements differ from the Federal standard regarding the same aspect of performance. We cannot determine whether specific State labeling requirements would be preempted by present or future Federal requirements without knowing specifically what the State requirements might be.; 3. If an exception is made in Standard No. 302 for small plastic parts would that exception include light-transmitting parts such as clock dials and instrument dials.; Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302, in enumerating those motor vehicl components which must meet the standard's requirements, does not list either of the components you mention. Accordingly, they are not subject to the standard unless they are 'designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash,' which appears to be unlikely.<<<; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel