Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: nht93-6.35

DATE: September 9, 1993

FROM: Anonymous

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/5/93 from John Womack to Anonymous (A41; Part 541)

TEXT:

This letter requests your confirmation that s proposed procedures for marking automotive parts would comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR Part 541.

The procedures in question would result in the marking of certain characters on such components as engine blocks or transmission casings, through the casting of these components at the time of production. Embossed (raised) characters would result, as contrasted with characters that are engraved or stamped into components or marked through other processes. The embossed characters would meet all of the performance requirements of the standard for permanence and tamper resistance. The embossed characters would be the vehicle manufacturer's logo and the "DOT" symbol. The characters would appear on both original equipment and replacement parts, and would be located in the specified target area under 49 CFR 541.6(e). The VIN number would be stamped on a plate, which is then affixed to the original equipment parts (in the separate original equipment part target area specified under 49 CFR 541.5(e)). The symbol "R" would be stamped directly on the replacement parts (in the replacement part target area). The enclosed figure shows the target areas for original equipment and replacement parts. The markings, processes, and locations are summarized as follows:

O.E. PARTS

Character Process Location

VIN stamped/affixed 541.5(e) Logo embossed 541.6(e) "DOT" embossed 541.6(e)

REPLACEMENT PARTS

Character Process Location

"R" stamped 541.6(e) Logo embossed 541.6(e) "DOT" embossed 541.6(e)

The use of the logo and DOT symbol on the O.E. parts, which is not required under the standard, results from the use of the same castings for original equipment and replacement parts.

It is our understanding that the Theft Prevention Standard does not prohibit the use of the embossing process for marking parts. The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, which required the establishment of the original theft prevention standard, provides that specified auto parts are to be identified by "inscribing or affixing" numbers or symbols. See 15 U.S.C. 2021(10). Although the Act does not define what is meant by "inscribing or affixing," the legislative history clearly provides vehicle manufacturers with broad discretion in selecting marking technologies. The House Report on the Act states as follows with regard to the standards:

As in the case of safety requirements, they are not to be design standards. The DOT will establish the tests or general criteria which the identification must meet, but not how it is to be inscribed or affixed. That is the choice of each manufacturer... In promulgating the standard, the Committee intends that the Secretary take into account the wide range of technologies available for numbering vehicles, and allow manufacturers to develop additional, better, or lower-cost technologies for compliance with the standard. The object of numbering motor vehicle parts is to make such parts traceable and recoverable.

Thus, the Committee expects, as already noted, that an important objective of devising the standard will be to ensure that the number is as permanent as possible and cannot be easily altered, tampered with or obliterated.

The method chosen to comply with the standard is at the discretion of each manufacturer, not the DOT.

See House Report 98-1087 (1984), pages 10 and 12.

NHTSA's rulemaking to adopt the standard reaffirmed the performance aspects of the standard. In the final rule adopting the standard and in the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA rejected comments suggesting that particular marking technologies should be specified in the standard. See 50 Fed. Reg. 43170 (October 24, 1985) and 51 Fed. Reg. 8834 (March 14, 1986).

It is also our understanding that the use of additional symbols (logo and "DOT") on original equipment parts (beyond the required VIN) is permissible. In a June 19, 1987, interpretation letter to Mr. Jim Moss of Auto Mark Corp., the NHTSA Chief Counsel authorized the use of an additional logo beyond the required markings under the theft prevention standard. That letter stated the following:

Using the same principles we have applied in the case of labeling requirements in our safety standard, manufacturers may label information in addition to that which is required by the theft prevention standard, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose.

The purpose of requiring the vehicle identification number to be inscribed on specified parts is to allow law enforcement officials to quickly and conclusively establish whether a vehicle or major part is stolen. We do not believe it is possible that law enforcement officials will be distracted from examining the markings inscribed on the parts by the presence of a stencil with your company name on it. Therefore, you are free to leave your company name on the stencil.

Under the proposed procedure, the required VIN number would be stamped on a plate and affixed to O.E. parts and the "R" symbol would be stamped on replacement parts. The presence of a manufacturer's logo and the DOT symbol on the original equipment parts should not confuse law enforcement officials, since the VIN and the "R" symbol would distinguish between original equipment and replacement parts. Nor should the presence of the additional logo and DOT symbol on O.E. parts defeat the purpose of the standard, by facilitating thefts.

For example, if a thief were to attempt to make an O.E. part that was produced under the proposed procedure appear to be a replacement part, the thief would have to take two steps, (remove the VIN and add the R marking); deletion and addition of marked information would also be required if other marking procedures were used. Each of the two steps would provide theft investigators with clues of tampering.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you require additional information or have any questions on this matter, please contact of my staff, at (blank).