Interpretation ID: nht92-9.27

DATE: February 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas A. Gerke, Esq. -- Smith, Gill, Fisher & Butts

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated December 23, 1991 from Thomas A. Gerke to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6865)

TEXT:

This responds to your December 23, 1991 letter concerning Safety Standard 107, Reflectinq Surfaces. You asked us to confirm the interpretation of the standard set forth in my September 3, 1991 letter to Mr. Thomas Steinhagen. The interpretation is correct.

My letter to Mr. Steinhagen was about the applicability of Standard 107 to a replacement windshield wiper arm and blade, a type of motor vehicle equipment that your client, Rally Manufacturing, seeks to sell. You state that Rally ceased producing certain windshield wiper arms and blades after NHTSA's Enforcement office notified Rally that it appeared the products did not meet the requirements of Standard 107.

My letter to Mr. Steinhagen clarified the requirements of Standard 107 and the Vehicle Safety Act. I emphasized the following points in the letter:

1. Standard 107 applies to new motor vehicles, and not to items of motor vehicle equipment, such as a replacement wiper arm and blade. Replacement wiper arms and blades may be sold to consumers without violating Federal law, even if the component does not conform to the requirements of Standard 107.

2. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If a person in the aforementioned categories installed a wiper arm and blade that did not conform to the requirements of Standard 107, the person would violate S108(a)(2)(A).

3. The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

4. Regardless of whether Standard 107 applies to the replacement arm and blade, the device is subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists either in an arm and blade that conforms to Standard 107 or in one that does not, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge.

In your letter, you specifically ask about the sale of a replacement wiper blade "by a wholesaler/distributor to retail stores and other similar customers without any installation service by the wholesaler/distributor." The sale is not prohibited by Standard 107 or S108(a)(2)(A). However, the retail store or "other similar customer" would be considered a dealer under S102(7) of the Safety Act, and thus subject to the "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A). While the dealer may sell the replacement blade, the dealer would be prohibited from installing it on a motor vehicle.

I regret any confusion resulting from NHTSA's letters to your client. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office.