The law on restamping

[Edward M.]

After reading Roy Sinor's comments in the latest issue of the restorer, I decided to see if I could find the federal law that applies to restamping of automobile parts.

I believe that Title 18, Unites States Code, Section 511 (18 USC 511) covers this issue. The subsection of this law that applies to our situation [(b)(2)(C)] states that "a person who restores or replaces an identification number for such vehicle in accordance with State law" is authorized to do so. It also appears that the owner of the vehicle has specific rights to "remove, obliterate, tamper with, or alter the decal or device".

I am not an attorney, and am not rendering a legal opinion. However, I have read the full text of the law and, in my opinion, the owner or his/her authorized agent can remove and restamp an engine for restoration purposes.

There may be state laws that specifically prohibit this, but federal law does not seem to. Just thought you might be interested.

[Joe L.]

Re: The law on restamping

Section 10750 of the State of California Vehicle Code prescribes as follows:

10750. (a) No person shall intentionally deface, destroy, or alter the motor number, other distinguishing number, or identification mark of a vehicle required or employed for registration purposes without written authorization from the department, nor shall any person place or stamp any serial, motor, or other number or mark upon a vehicle, except one assigned thereto by the department. (b) This section does not prohibit the restoration by an owner of the original vehicle identification number when the restoration is authorized by the department, nor prevent any manufacturer from placing in the ordinary course of business numbers or marks upon new motor vehicles or new parts thereof.

I don't know how similar this is to the laws of other states, but, for California, the law seems pretty clear

[Tom Freeman]

Re: The law on restamping

But this Calif law refers to numbers for registration purposes. That is the VIN. Engine numbers are not used for registration. Thay may contain parts of the VIN in them, but they are NOT the numbers used for registration.

So would that apply to engine restamping? I can see where it would apply to changing the VIN but that is not the issue.

tom...

[Jack H.]

Re: The law on restamping

Does it matter (the slender distinction -- VIN/VIN derivative)? What got quoted said in plane English, putting marks back on for the purpose of restoration was OK. That's the issue restoration vs. counterfeit/fraud.

[Joe L.]

Re: The law on restamping

Sorry for creating confusion. My response, and California Vehicle Code citation, was primarily intended to deal with the issue of changing/altering vehicle VIN numbers. I realize that the topic was "restamping", but I believe that the United States Codes section cited in the original post actually refers to VIN numbers used for registration purposes. I simply offerred the California Vehicle Code information as an example of the type of state law that the federal law was referring to.

Now for my opinion on actual restamping which I have stated before. I LOATHE the thought of folks altering engines in vehicles for the purpose of increasing their value and carefully stamping the VIN derivative to match the car. However, as far as I know, it is completely legal. With the exception of the VIN, ALL of the other "numbers" on a car have absolutely no legal significance whatsoever. The engine pad stampings have no more legal significance than the casting numbers on the bellhousing or the casting date on the carrier housing. In effect, what these people are doing is creating a "reproduction" car. The ethical problem arises when thes cars are offerred as "originals". In fact, it may be impossible to distinguish a "reproduction" from an "original", as it is with some reproduction parts. If GM had only started coding the engine into the VIN about 9 years earlier or if they had kept records, this problem would be moot. But, they didn't.

With respect to an individual restoring a vehicle to its original configuration, I, for one, see no problem with obtaining a correctly dated block and correctly stamping it to match the car. How is this any different than replacing any other non-original components with "correct" original components, dated, stamped, or otherwise? Isn't that the essence of restoration? Why is it important that if a car is seperated from its original engine or transmission, it can never be restored to its exactly original condition, but, if it is seperated from any of its other components, it is acceptable to restore it to "original" condition with components which were not actually factory-installed on that particular car?

Anyway, just so you know that I don't have some self-serving reason for my opinion, I am the original owner of my '69 and I have virually all of the original components for it, including the engine and transmission. I still don't think it's wrong for someone to fully restore a car who doesn't have my good fortune.