Interpretation ID: aiam2287
Administrator
Motor Vehicle Administration
Maryland Department of Transportation
6601 Ritchie Highway
N.E.
Glen Burnie
Maryland 21062;
Dear Mr. Johnson: This is in response to your letter of March 4. 1976, concerning Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number*.; As I advised you on March 1, 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) intends to issue with a few months a notice of proposed rulemaking relating to a standardized Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). At that time, it is our intent to contact directly a number of interested organizations, including the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, the International Standards Organization, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and seek comments regarding the proposal.; I believe this procedure will satisfy the requirements in sectio 103(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) for NHTSA to consult with the Commission in prescribing standards under the Act. Regarding this requirement, the conference committee stated:; >>>In the administration of the provision it is expected that th Secretary will, to the extent consistent with the purposes of this act, inform the VESC and other agencies of *proposed* standards and amendments thereto and afford them a reasonable opportunity to study and comment thereon. (Emphasis added.) (H. Rep. No. 1919, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1966))<<<; Informing the VESC of proposed rulemaking, i.e., proposals issued b the agency, and providing an opportunity to comment, is the practice that the agency has been following and intends to continue following pursuant to section 103(f).; If a final rule relating to a VIN format is promulgated, we woul expect all manufacturers to comply with the requirements of the amended standard and therefore do not anticipate litigation on our part. Consequently, should litigation ensue, as you suggest in your letter, it is my expectation that it would emanate from a manufacturer faced with differing requirements.; NHTSA has been considering the preemptive effect of Standard No. 115 As you know, the standard requires a VIN that is unique to a manufacturer during a ten-year period. It does not specify the length or content of the number. The question, therefore, becomes whether the standard was intended generally to cover all aspects of those numbers, and preempt any differing State rules. The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Florida Lime & Avacado(sic) Growers v. Paul*, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142, (1963), is 'whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field.' Under the accepted doctrines enunciated in cases as *Thorne v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and *Chrysler v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is 'of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'; The NHTSA has determined that Standard No. 115 is intended to cover al aspects of VIN's relative to the vehicles to which the standard applies, and that any aspects for which there are no specific requirements were intended by this agency to be left to the discretion of the manufacturers. State regulations differing from the standard on this subject are found to 'impair the federal superintendence of the field,' within the meaning of the *Florida Lime* doctrine, and any such State regulation would be preempted under section 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).; Should you have any other questions concerning this matter,please d not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator