Interpretation ID: nht90-3.82

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: W.C. Glasscock -- Sun-Cool, & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 from P.J. Rice to W.C. Glasscock (A36; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Thank you for your attention to this letter as I am sure you recieve many with the position you hold.

My name is: William Charles Glasscock, operator of a small business located in Spfld. Il. known as Sun-Cool, & Co. which sells, services and installs solar film by Madico; on commercial, residence and last but not least automobiles.

I have personally engaged in this business for 18 years. Most recently I have contacted your office in Washington along with several Federal offices whose numbers were recieved thru several phone calls and by divine guidance with the last one directing me to the Chief Council Office. The answers to many questions I was searching for have left me no alternative but to address this letter formally and with utmost concern.

FMVSS205 has existed on the Federal Dept. of Transportation National Institute of Highway Transportation Associations book since 1968. This particular law, which until recently was not made clear to me as a layman of common interpretation, has shocked m e into reality faster than anything has in my 38 years thus far.

I first got started doing the Art of Window Tinting in 1972 in the state of Florida, where I was born. Circumstances have led me to return to Illinois where I had been raised and have resided for the last twenty years.

Sir, the problems I am now faced with are as follows:

Federal Law: FMVSS205 prohibits the use of materials on windows required for driving purposes to be installed by any after market specialty shop on any passenger vehicles that reduce the light transmission to less than 70% visible light.

State enacted laws have been revised and altered in accordance with the now existing Federal Law. Illinois for example, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles manufactured after January 1st. 1982, as long as owner of said vehicle has a letter from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois gives them a letter explaining the medical excuse for such need.

As I see now,a conflict does exist between State and Federal laws.

With the fact in mind that a Federal law supersedes State law, I personally would like to be able to understand why the people of the United States have had to pay State Government and Legislation to enact

their own laws in regards to the use of materials on automobiles, when in all reality there exists this Federal law that strictly prohibits its use as stated above. I personally have been going to our States Capitol office off and on for several years, to speak to representatives pertaining to this matter. I have been harassed by local and state police officers to the point that I was in a state of deep depression with many productive hours lost and personal health as well as respect in the community I and my family reside in.

In addition to the embarassment due to the neglect of enforcement by state and federal authorities of this particular law, I am now afraid to continue the business I am engaged in; which leaves me no means of support for myself and my family.

I am also very confused as to why advertising on the part of all manufactures of this material do so state by pictures that this is a legitimate business and that anyone that so desires may by video or personal training engage in this practice. Understa nding the laws of advertising, I would also like an answer to the reason major auto manufactures are allowed through subliminal message as I see it to advertise new automobiles on television and brochures that these autos may come already tinted less tha n the Federal standards allow. Major film studios are using in certain films automobiles that portray an image of criminal activity or wealth towards individuals driving certain automobiles, limo's, mercedes and the like, which I believe also to be decep tive practices.

I do believe that the crime here should not fall on the responsibility of the individuals such as myself, and that there seems to be a lack of intention on the part of Illinois government bodies as well as parts of the United States Government, to correc t what appears to be inconsistency in upholding the law. With all probability it is possible that through closed eyes for what I believe to be in essence of capitol gains, damage would intail loss of life as well as damage to the environment, through th e obvious procrastination of correction with this matter.

At this point in time I would like to close with the hopes of an immediate response to help with this dilema.