ID: 2171y

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter of September 22, 1989, forwarding Representative Morella's letter inquiring about the requirements of Federal law and regulations as they apply to the tinting of motor vehicle windows for medical reasons. We recently began a rulemaking proceeding on the issue of tinting, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the matter.

The enclosures to Ms. Morella's letter described a case in which a person suffers from a skin disease called vitiligo and was advised to avoid exposure to the sun's rays. The presumption is that this person needs more protection from the sun than that afforded by vehicle windows that conform to the Federal standard.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a minimum 70 percent light transmissibility for glazing at levels "requisite for driving visibility," which includes all windows in passenger cars. When a requirement is established in a Federal safety standard, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new vehicle that does not comply with that requirement. The Safety Act does not provide for individual medical exemptions.

Similarly, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" an element of design required by a safety standard, such as minimum light transmissibility. This "render inoperative" prohibition applies to vehicles after sale to purchasers. Neither this "render inoperative" provision nor any other Federal requirement would prohibit an individual vehicle owner from modifying their own vehicles, even if the modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the Federal safety standards. Thus, an individual vehicle owner can make whatever modifications he or she likes, for medical or any other reasons, without violating Federal law. However, the individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that owners may make to their vehicles, and many States have chosen to regulate window tinting. For your reference, I have enclosed copies of our July 8, 1988 letter to Representative Shumway and our November 1, 1988 letter to Representative Byron on this subject.

The minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205 represents a balancing of legitimate competing interests. On the one hand, safety considerations dictate that drivers must be able to see and analyze the traffic situation in which the vehicle is being operated and react to that situation properly and promptly. To the extent that some of the available light is not transmitted through the vehicle glazing, the driver's ability to react to the traffic situation is potentially delayed. This is especially true under low light conditions, such as occur at night and on very overcast days.

On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons for allowing some tinting of vehicle windows. These include avoiding excessive heat for all vehicle occupants, reducing glare for the driver, preserving the vehicle interior, and helping persons with medical conditions that are sensitive to the sun's rays.

NHTSA balanced these competing interests by establishing the current 70 percent minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205. However, the agency was asked in a petition for rulemaking to reexamine this balance and to permit darker tinting of windows, by lowering the minimum light transmissibility requirement. We decided to reexamine whether the current minimum light transmissibility requirement continues to represent the most appropriate and reasonable balance of the competing interests.

Accordingly, on July 20, 1989, this agency published a request for comments on a comprehensive review of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirement for side and rear window glazing in passenger automobiles. One of the issues raised was the light transmissibility standard's effect on those who need more protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays. The comment period for this notice closed on September 18, 1989. The agency received nearly one hundred comments on this issue and is currently reviewing those comments. We will notify you and Ms. Morella when we announce our decision.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docket for this rulemaking action. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Acting Administrator

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Constance A. Morella

ref:205 d:ll/20/89

ID: nht68-1.40

DATE: 02/21/68

FROM: EDWIN L. SLAGLE -- DOT NHSB DIRECTOR MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PERFORMANCE SERVICE

TO: H. S. BEAGLE -- PRESIDENT ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2/20/68 FROM H. S. BEAGLE OF ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. TO EDWIN L. SLAGLE OF D.O.T. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU;

TEXT: Dear Mr. Beagle:

Thank you for your letter of February 20 in which you request clarification as to the proper test procedures to be employed in determining compliance of electrically heated automotive glazing with the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 - Glazing Materials.

Since neither Standard No. 205 nor the USASI Standard Z26.1 - 1966, which is referenced in Standard No. 205, specifies special procedures with regard to electrically heated glass, the same procedures required for non-electrically heated glass are appropriate.

Although at present rear window defrosting and defogging are not required, I would be most pleased to review with you your experience as to the effectiveness of this type of glass in meeting requirements such as have been established under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103.

Sincerely,

ID: nht72-3.14

DATE: 07/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert T. Sanders

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1972, requesting an interpretation as to the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. "Glazing Materials," to certain recreational vehicles and equipment, pictures of which you enclosed. These components consist of slide-in and chassis-mount campers, trailers, and motor homes.

In a recently issued amendment to Standard No. 205, the NHTSA has clarified the application of the standard to campers. As amended, the standard applies to campers, both slide-in and chassis-mount, that are designed to transport occupants while in motion. Accordingly, the pick-up cap which you illustrate appears to be except from the standard. In addition, Standard No. 205 does not apply to trailers, and would not apply to the fifth-wheel unit illustrated in the drawing forwarded to us.

With reference to the chassis-mount and slide-in campers, any window except forward facing windows, which include both front-facing windows and behind-the-cab windows, may be manufacturered of any glazing material (AS 1 through AS 11) specified in ARS Z26.1-1966, and two additional materials (Items 32 and 33), the requirements for which are specified in the recent amendment. With reference to forward-facing camper windows, all of the above materials may be used, except for AS 6 and AS 7 glazing materials, as specified in ANS Z26.1-1966 and item 13 glazing specified in the new amendment.

With respect to motor homes that are not campers, these vehicles are multipurpose passenger vehicles and must meet the glazing requirements for trucks. Accordingly, the windshield must be manufactured of either AS 1 or AS 10 glazing materials, side windows to the (immediate right or left of the driver must be either AS 1, AS 2, AS 10, or AS 11 materials, and other side windows must be either AS 1, AS 2, AS 3, AS 4, AS 5, AS 8, AS 9, AS 10, or AS 11 glazing materials. We would consider the overhead window in the motor home you (illustrate to be an "opening in the roof," and any of the materials allowed in side windows, or the materials allowed to be used by the recent amendment, may be (Illegible Word) in this location.

ID: nht68-4.3

DATE: 08/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Calumet Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 22, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning the applicability and effective date of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 is applicable to new vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the standard. Initial Standard No. 108 was published on February 3, 1967, and became effective January 1, 1968. The initial standard is applicable only to vehicle that are 80 inches or more in overall width. Revised Standard No. 108 was published on December 16, 1967, and becomes effective January 1, 1969. The revised standard is applicable to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles, regardless of overall width; however, the special requirements for vehicles that are 80 inches or more in overall width have been identified in the standard. Copies of the initial and revised standard are enclosed for your information.

In reply to your specific questions, information is provided as follows:

1. With respect to your first question, Standard No. 108 is applicable to trailers manufactured for personal use by an individual and for commercial use.

2. With respect to your second question, Revised Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, specifies the lighting requirements for trailers that are less than 80 inches in overall width.

3. With respect to your third question, the regulations of individual States and of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (for vehicles engaged in interstate commerce) presently govern the lighting required on trailers that are less than 80 inches in overall width. Effective January 1, 1969, these trailers will be subject to the requirements of Revised Standard No. 108. Installation and location requirements for the individual lamps are contained in the referenced SAE standards (see Table III of Standard No. 108) and in Table IV of Standard No. 108.

Also enclosed is a copy of the notice on "Certification Requirement," which provides information on the manufacturer's certification of vehicles that are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht72-4.35

DATE: 04/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Department of Engineering

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Carter has asked me to reply to your letter of March 3, 1972, in which you ask who has the responsibility for certification of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.

Paragraph 567.5(a) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations states, ". . . Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each final-stage manufacturer, as defined in @ 568.3 of this chapter, of a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages shall affix to each vehicle a label, of the type and in the manner and form described . . . ." Paragraphs (b) and (c) are concerned with incomplete and intermediate manufacturers who assume legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act), with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured.

Paragraph 568.3 states. " 'Final-stage' manufacturer means a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle."

The subject is also dealt with in the Preamble to Part 568 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. " . . . By its definition, a completed vehicle is one that requires no further manufacturing operations in order to perform its intended function other than the attachments of readily attachable components and minor finishing operations. If a manufacturer installs a component that is not readily attachable, such as a fifth wheel, then he is a final-stage manufacturer even though his contribution to the overall vehicle may appear small . . .

"In the event that a 'readily attachable component' is a component regulated by the standards, such as a mirror or a tire, the final-stage manufacturer must assume responsibility and certify the vehicle even though he does not install the particular component. Otherwise, the installer of mirrors and tires would be considered a final-stage manufacturer, a status that he would probably find unacceptable and that would tend to make certification less meaningful . . . ."

I am enclosing Parts 567 and 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have further questions I will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht94-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 24, 1994

FROM: Larry L. Wessels -- President, Rocky Mountain Technology Engineering Corporation

TO: John Womak -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/6/94 from Larry L. Wessels to John Womack (A42; Stds 106)

TEXT: During the past several months we have been in communication with Dr. Gerald Steward of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Dr. Stewart suggested in his letter dated April 18, 1994, that we provide you with pertinent safety and product i nformation regarding our new invention for a safety product, "Handi-Slide", for semitrailers equipped with sliding axle/undercarriage assemblies.

The "Handi-Slide" has the potential to reduce or eliminate existing safety problems as identified in the U.S. Department of Transportation 49 Code of Federal Regulations. Specific Code of Regulations are identified in our information booklet that is enc losed.

We have also enclosed a "Handi-Slide" video that shows and demonstrates the advantages of our pneumatic/air locking pin system compared to the present manual force pin removal system that has been in use since sliding undercarriages were introduced appro ximately 40 years ago. The state-of-the-art "Handi-Slide" system offers the trucking industry improved safety and increased operating efficiency compared to the old manual cantilever system that is currently in use.

We have installed "Handi-Slide" over-the-road test units on several semitrailers. We are receiving numerous favorable comments from truck owners, drivers and trailer manufacturer engineers regarding the "Handi-Slide" test units.

If you have any further questions, please contact us at (303)922-4518. We look forward to receiving your comments regarding our new invention. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Enclosures

ID: nht81-1.32

DATE: 03/10/81

FROM: STEPHEN W. MATSON -- TRADE SERVICES INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/25/81 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO STEPHEN W. MATSON; REDBOOK A22, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This letter is to formally request your review and interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 as it relates to the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp. The attached drawings demonstrate the specific concept in question.

Information contained in SAE standards referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 indicates that a specific prohibition exists regarding a headlamp lens cover for passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, trucks and busses. The SAE Motorcycle Headlamp Standard (SAE J584) contains no such prohibition. It is our understanding that a component configuration such as the one illustrated would not conflict with SAE referenced requirements.

Another section of FMVSS 108 which could relate to this issue is Paragraph S4.1.3 which states that "No . . . . automotive equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." If, when the secondary lens in question is in place, the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 can be met or exceeded, the lens cover would then be compatible with the standard.

Detailed review of FMVSS 108 and the other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have revealed no other requirements germane to this issue.

Your review of our analysis will be most appreciated. We feel that the proposed concept is in keeping with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Hopefully your review will confirm our opinion. Should you have any questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ENC

ID: nht76-1.2

DATE: 06/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1976, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, for identification of the headlamps and taillamps control.

Your letter presented two symbols specified by the International Standards Organization as alternatives for identification of the master lighting switch. One of these appears in Column 4 of Table 1 of the standard and the other does not appear anywhere in the table. The headlamps and taillamps control (master lighting switch) is required by S4.2.1 to be identified with the word "Lights". The manufacturer may supplement this identification with a symbol, but only with a symbol that appears in Column 3 or Column 4 of Table 1. In issuing the amendment to the standard published July 29, 1975 (40 FR 31770, copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered both ISO symbols and decided not to permit the one that does not appear in the table.

YOURS TRULY,

British Leyland Motors Inc.

March 29, 1976

Office of General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: FMVSS 101

To commonize on switches used for master lighting controls worldwide, one of the Leyland Cars divisions would like to use the ISO light bulb symbol for master lighting switch.

We do not find this alternative provided in any recent proposals issued by NHTSA and we ask:

a) if you have considered this alternative symbol

b) if you have decided not to allow its use

c) would you consider its use.

Dianne Black Liaison Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-4.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 15, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W. Marshall Rickert -- Motor Vehicle Administrator, Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-31-90 from W.M. Rickert to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5076); Also attached to Maryland Vehicle Law, sections 22-103 and 104, page 320 (text omitted); Also attached to Maryland Vehicle Inspections procedures regarding m irrors and vehicle glazing, pages 227 and 228 (text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter seeking this agency's opinion as to whether the State of Maryland may amend its motor vehicle regulations to permit the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows, for individuals who may desire this for medica l reasons. I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the legal principles that relate to your question.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on pa ssenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in complianc e with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperati ve" within the meaning of Standard 205.

This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides:

A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unle ss the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the (Maryland Motor Vehicle) Administrator.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which aftermarket tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, although section 22-104 appears to preclude aftermarket tinting by any person if the result would be to reduce the level of light transmittance below 70 percent, Maryland may amend its rules or regulations to permit such tinting by individuals, for medical or any other reasons deemed valid by the State. However, Maryland has no authority to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any p rovisions of Maryland law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

In adopting Standard 205, NHTSA determined that a minimum light transmittance of 70 percent is necessary to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. This is the same level of light transmittance contained in the Safety Code of the American National Stand ards Institute. If, as your letter suggests, Maryland is considering permitting vehicle owners to modify their vehicles such that their windows will have a lower level of light transmittance, we would urge you to carefully consider the safety consequenc es of such an exemption.

Please let me know if you need any further information on this subject.

ID: 2703y

Mr. W. Marshall Rickert
Motor Vehicle Administrator
Maryland Department of Transportation
6601 Ritchie Highway
Glen Burnie, MD 21062

Dear Mr. Rickert:

Thank you for your letter seeking this agency's opinion as to whether the State of Maryland may amend its motor vehicle regulations to permit the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows, for individuals who may desire this for medical reasons. I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the legal principles that relate to your question.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperative" within the meaning of Standard 205.

This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides: A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unless the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the [Maryland Motor Vehicle] Administrator.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which aftermarket tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, although section 22-104 appears to preclude aftermarket tinting by any person if the result would be to reduce the level of light transmittance below 70 percent, Maryland may amend its rules or regulations to permit such tinting by individuals, for medical or any other reasons deemed valid by the State. However, Maryland has no authority to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of Maryland law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

In adopting Standard 205, NHTSA determined that a minimum light transmittance of 70 percent is necessary to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. This is the same level of light transmittance contained in the Safety Code of the American National Standards Institute. If, as your letter suggests, Maryland is considering permitting vehicle owners to modify their vehicles such that their windows will have a lower level of light transmittance, we would urge you to carefully consider the safety consequences of such an exemption.

Please let me know if you need any further information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:l0/l5/90