Interpretation ID: nht76-5.46
DATE: 05/11/76
FROM: VETTER FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA
TO: Maryland Department of Transportation
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 4, 1976, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number.
As I advised you on March 1, 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends to issue within 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 requirement in section 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 this provision it is expected that the 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 by 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 would 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 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 all 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 do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ATTACH.
Maryland Department of Transportation
March 4, 1976
James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Dear Dr. Gregory:
I appreciate your letter of March 1, 1976 advising me that you Administration intends to issue, within the next few months, an NPRM to amend the existing FMVSS No. 115 to standardize the vehicle identification numbering system for all vehicles on a worldwide basis.
I shall certainly advise my colleagues who serve with me on the Executive Committee of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's intent in this regard. I presume, and it certainly will be my recommendation, that the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission proceed with the promulgation of the Vehicle Identification Number Standard that was the subject of VESC hearings in Orlando, Florida in early December.
As I indicated in my correspondence to General Vetter, as soon as the VESC Standard is promulgated, and assuming it is, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration will promulgate rules and regulations adopting the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission's standard as its own and require manufacturers to comply with the Maryland standard as a condition for the titling and registration of vehicles within this jurisdiction. This action on my part naturally assumes that the pre-emption provision does not apply in this matter and that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not complied with the Congressional mandate that it consult with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission in the promulgation of equipment standards.
I presume, on the basis of your correspondence, that I can anticipate litigation in this matter and I have instructed counsel to prepare for this contingency.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
EJNER J. JOHNSON -- Administrator
CC: Joseph P. Murphy;
George O. Stevens;
Robert R. Harrison