Interpretation ID: eightyrs.crs
Director, Product Integrity
Fisher-Price, Inc.
6636 Grand Avenue
East Aurora, NY 14052
Dear Mr. Harris:
I am writing to clarify a statement in a letter from this office, which was referenced in, and enclosed with, your letter dated October 14, 1996 to Pat Wallace of our Office of Defects Investigation. The letter from this office, which was dated July 27, 1989 and addressed to Mr. Robert V. Potter, Jr. of Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc., stated that in the event that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is found to exist in a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment, the manufacturer is required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act "to provide a remedy without charge to consumers for eight years after purchase." In your letter to Ms. Wallace, you cite this statement as indicating that there is a limit to the time in which a manufacturer is obligated to remedy a defect or noncompliance.
To the extent that it implies that a manufacturer's obligation to remedy a defect or noncompliance expires eight years after the purchase of an affected product, this statement does not accurately characterize the relevant statute. The statement was derived from a provision of the Safety Act, now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30120(g), which reads as follows:
-
The requirement that a remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the motor vehicle or replacement equipment was bought by the first purchaser more than 8 calendar years . . . before notice is given under section 30118(c) of this title or an order is issued under section 30118(b) of this title, whichever is earlier.
This provision relieves a manufacturer from the obligation to provide a remedy without charge for defects and noncompliances in products that were first purchased more than eight years before the manufacturer furnishes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and affected vehicle owners with notification of the defect or noncompliance.
The quoted language from section 30120(g) should not be interpreted as limiting a manufacturer's responsibility to remedy defects and noncompliances to a period of eight years from the purchase of an affected product. If a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment is purchased less than eight years before its manufacturer provides notification that it contains a defect or noncompliance, the manufacturer's obligation to remedy the defect or noncompliance remains in existence for the full service life of the vehicle or equipment item. Contrary to the manner in which you appear to have interpreted the statement in our July 27, 1989 letter to Mr. Potter, this obligation does not expire eight years after the purchase of the affected product.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120(a)(1)(B), manufacturers of replacement equipment, including child safety seats, may elect to remedy a safety defect or noncompliance "by repairing the equipment or replacing the equipment with identical or reasonably equivalent equipment." Therefore, Fisher-Price may not, as your letter suggests, "supply replacement parts until such times as stocks are depleted and thereafter provide a refund less an allowance for depreciation." The latter alternative may only be chosen by vehicle manufacturers. Compare 49 U.S.C. 30120(a)(1)(A) with 30120(a)(1)(B).
We regret any confusion that may have resulted from the statement in our June 27, 1989 letter. If you have any further questions concerning our interpretation of the notification and remedy requirements for defects and noncompliances, please contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238. Any questions regarding the implementation of these requirements should be directed to Jon White of our Office of Defects Investigation at 202-366-5227.
Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Robert V. Potter, Esquire
ref:VSA
d.12/17/96