Interpretation ID: aiam0834
Esq.
Bradley
Arant
Rose & White
1500 Brown-Marx Building
Birmingham
AL
35203;
Dear Mr. Bynum: This is in reply to your letter of July 31, 1972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'.; You ask whether your client is justified in assuring its customers tha the mattress ticking it manufactures complies with Standard No. 302 after a testing company has reported that it does. Whether a product must meet the requirements of a federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined by the 'application' section of each standard. Standard No. 302 is by its terms applicable to specific types of motor vehicles, and individual items of motor vehicle equipment are not included. Of course, components which are incorporated into motor vehicles covered by the Standard will normally be required by contract with the motor vehicle manufacturer to conform to all relevant standards before the first purchase by a user.; The basis upon which a manufacturer makes a determination that vehicle or component conforms to a standard is within his own discretion. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approval of any item of motor vehicle equipment as conforming to any motor vehicle safety standards.; You ask further, 'to what extent, if any, will the manufacturer of product which in its original state complies with federal law be held responsible for noncompliance despite alteration of the product by the ultimate consumer'. Generally, a manufacturer is not liable for the noncompliance of its product resulting from the alterations of a consumer. However, if the manufacturer could reasonably expect consumers to perform the alteration, then the NHTSA might consider the resultant nonconformity to be a safety related defect under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Finally, you are correct in assuming that the NHTSA views 15 U.S.C S1397(b)(2) to mean that a 'manufacturer may escape the penalties contained in S1398 of title 15 upon a showing that it 'did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care' that its product was substandard'.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel