Interpretation ID: 86-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Benjamin R. Jackson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Benjamin R. Jackson Executive Director Automobile Importers Compliance Association 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Jackson:

This responds to your letter following up our correspondence regarding the designation of the target zones under 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. In this letter, you quoted the statement in my February 4, 1986, letter to you that NHTSA knows of a number of means of inscribing numbers on curved surfaces that would permit direct importers to mark those surfaces within the $15 cost limit. You asked me to provide information to you on the means of inscription to which I referred, including the name of the process and the address and telephone number of supplier firms.

The means of inscribing curved surfaces to which I referred in my previous letter to you include technologies such as chemical etching, sandblasting, "shot-peening", and hard-point vibration. Each of these technologies would enable a person to inscribe markings on curved surfaces, and none requires the purchase of very expensive equipment.

This agency does not provide commercial referrals of supplier firms for a number of reasons. Section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 D.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify that any particular means of marking complies with the theft prevention standard. A listing of supplier firms might be viewed as an approval or endorsement of those firms and their means of marking, and be contrary to the statutory requirement.

Further, as a policy matter, this agency does not provide commercial referrals even absent statutory requirements. By listing a group of supplier firms, the agency would give those firms an unintended "government sanction" for their products. Conversely, any such listing would unintentionally denigrate all firms not included in the listing. Any commercial referrals by this agency would give rise to these potential problems no matter what disclaimers NHTSA attached to the referral.

The theft prevention standard is a performance standard that specifies criteria with which the markings used by your group must comply. You are free to choose the means of compliance. In making that choice, you will have to use your business judgment to decide whether you should inscribe the markings yourself or pay someone else to inscribe the markings. If you choose to pay someone else to inscribe the markings, the choice of whom you should select would again be your decision.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 26, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you for your letter, dated February 4, 1986, concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standards and the designation of the target zone for parts marking. Your letter was very helpful.

In the last paragraph of your letter, you stated that the NHTSA "knows of a number of means of inscribing numbers on curved surfaces that would permit direct importers to mark those surfaces within the $15 cost limit." It would be extremely helpful to us if you would provide the information to us on the means or inscription referenced, including name of process and address and telephone number of supplier firm.

We will be glad to receive this information from the appropriate persons within NHTSA by telephone, thus avoiding the need for a written response to this letter. Please note that your assistance will be extremely useful to us in our attempts to comply with the vehicle theft prevention standard.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Benjamin R. Jackson BRJ/gr