Interpretation ID: ModelYearJonesLet.4

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw
1909 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter of November 19, 2002, regarding Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirements (49 CFR Part 565). Specifically, you ask whether 49 CFR 565.6(d)(1) permits a manufacturer to designate vehicles as belonging to a single model year, where the production period for such vehicles falls within three different calendar years, but runs for less than 24 months in total. Based upon the definition of the term "model year" in 49 CFR 565.3(j), the answer is no.

We are pleased to clarify this provision of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations dealing with VIN requirements. Under 49 CFR 565.6(d)(1), manufacturers are directed to include a character for model year as the first character of the fourth section of the VIN, with the year-specific alphanumeric code drawn from Table VI of that section. Under 49 CFR 565.3(j), the term "model year" is defined as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model, irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years."

Before the agency promulgated a final rule moving VIN requirements to Part 565 (48 FR 22567, May 19, 1983), those requirements were found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115. As your letter observes, the final rule states that "[t]he basic substantive requirements of Standard 115 are unchanged by this action." 48 FR 22567, 22567. However, in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that preceded the final rule, the agency did note that "[s]ome minor clarifications are also being proposed in this notice." 47 FR 42004, 42005 (Sept. 23, 1982).

One of those clarifications concerned the definition of "model year," for the purpose of the VIN regulations. In its migration from FMVSS No. 115 to Part 565, the definition of "model year" was changed slightly, with the word "calendar" added to the text requiring that the actual period of production be "less than two calendar years."

Before that change, the definition of "model year" read: "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than 2 years." Although we recognize that, as you suggest, it would have been possible to construe the reference to "2 years" in that definition as meaning any 24-month period, the presence of the term "calendar year" earlier in the same sentence would have equally supported an alternative construction that "2 years" referred to two calendar years. Thus, the 1983 addition of the word "calendar" to the definition of "model year" clarified the earlier definition in order to remove any possible ambiguity as to the meaning of "years."

The agency received no comments objecting to this amendment in response to the NPRM, and the final rules definition of the term "model year" has remained in place for nearly two decades. Moreover, interpreting the term "model year" to mean any 24-month period, as your letter suggests, would require us to read out the concept of "calendar year" from the definition at 49 CFR 565.3(j).

As you apparently realize, vehicles manufactured in calendar year 2003 could not be designed as MY 2005 vehicles for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program (see 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(15)) or the Theft Protection requirements (see 49 U.S.C. 33101(8)). While we recognize that those programs are authorized under a different statute than the VIN program, we see no reason to construe the VIN requirements in a manner that would allow vehicles to have different model years for different purposes.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Assistant Chief Counsel

ref:565
d.2/4/03