Interpretation ID: GF009344

Mr. Dave Adams
Market Manager Automotive, N.A.
Tesa Tape
5825 Camegie Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28209

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your December 3, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin of my staff, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). Specifically, you ask us to clarify the requirements in 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) with regard to the residual parts of a removed parts making label.

By way of background, the purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard requires that a parts marking label, containing identifying numbers or symbols (usually the Vehicle Identification Number is used), be placed on major parts of certain passenger motor vehicles.

541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires that removal of the parts marking label must: "discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present. "(Emphasis added.) These residual parts are also known as "footprints."

In your e-mail, you indicate that you have encountered labels that leave a footprint upon removal, but that the footprint "can easily be wiped away thus providing no evidence that a label was originally present."You ask whether such an easily removable footprint satisfies the requirements of 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B). Our answer is no.

Section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires the footprint to be of a quality that will alert investigators that a label was once present. Since the vehicle would be inspected by an investigator some time after the removal of the label, the requirement envisions the footprint to have a degree of permanence. As indicated in the final rule establishing the footprint requirement, the agency thought that footprints that could not be removed with most solvents would be effective (see 50 FR 43166, at 43174; October 24, 1985). We note however, that the standard does not require that the footprint be visible under natural light (see April 8, 1994 letter to Daniel T. Mason).

In sum, unless removal of the label creates or uncovers lasting physical evidence that the label was originally present, the effectiveness of the theft prevention standard would be substantially reduced. In fact, allowing for an easily removable footprint would frustrate the very purpose of the requirement.

If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.2/2/05