Interpretation ID: 1983-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: 3M Center -- Mary Ruth Harsha, Office of General Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/30/76 letter from Frank Berndt to Mark T. Lerche (Sun Control Products of Virginia, Inc.); Also, 11/10/76 letter from Frank Berndt to M.P. McNiff (3M Company, Solar Control Products); Also, 4/18/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Charles H. Percy

TEXT:

Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha Office of General Counsel 3M Center P.O. Box 33428 St. Paul, Minnesota 55133

Dear Ms. Harsha:

This responds to your company's recent letter regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety regulations to the sale and application of sun control films on motor vehicles. You ask whether our November 10, 1976, letter to your company on this same subject is still applicable, as well as several other questions.

Our November 1976 letter is still current. Solar films themselves are not considered glazing materials under Safety Standard No. 205. As stated in that letter, however, the application of such films to motor vehicles by certain persons does give rise to responsibilities under Federal law. I am enclosing a copy of a recent letter of interpretation which discusses the pertinent Federal law on this subject.

I am also enclosing a copy of a telegram that we recently sent to the Hawaii Department of Transportation which discusses the preemptive effect of Safety Standard No. 205 over State laws governing the same aspect of motor vehicle performance, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seg.). The Hawaii legislature has passed a law which attempts to allow dealers and businesses in that State to apply solar films on motor vehicles. Those films are allowed to reduce transmittance down to 35 percent. As pointed out in the enclosed telegram, Safety Standard No. 205 preempts that State statute in certain respects. The letter of interpretation and the telegram should answer all of your questions.

Please note that under Safety Standard No. 205 all windows in a passenger car are considered requisite for driving visibility. Thus, all windows in a passenger car must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. In vehicles other than passenger cars, typically, only the windshield and front side windows are considered requisite for driving visibility. This means, for example, that a van could have solar films installed on windows behind the driver, since no transmittance requirements are specified for those windows.

I hope this has answered all your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures (4/18/83 letter from NHTSA to Charles H. Percy omitted here:)

2/17/83

TO: PAUL J PHILLIPSON STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCH BOWL STREET, 5TH FLOOR HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813

THIS LETTER RESPONDS TO YOUR FEBRUARY 11, 1983 LETTER REGARDING BILL CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED IN THE HAWAII LEGISLATURE.

THE BILL, S.B. NO. 57, RELATES TO LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE THROUGH VEHICLE GLAZING AND PRACTICE OF ATTACHING A "SUN SCREENING DEVICE" TO SUCH GLAZING. BILL PERMITS ADDITION OF SUN SCREENING DEVICE TO SIDE WINDOWS AND REAR WINDOWS IF LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE AND LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING AND SCREENING DEVICE TOGETHER ARE EACH NOT MORE THAN 35 PERCENT.

THIS BILL, IF ENACTED, WOULD BE AT LEAST PARTIALLY PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND WOULD NOT, IN ANY EVENT, ALTER PROHIBITION IN FEDERAL LAW AGAINST AFFIXING OF TINTING FILM OR OTHER MATERIALS OR DEVICES SO AS TO REDUCE LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING BELOW THAT REQUIRED IN FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS. SECTION 103(d) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT, AS AMENDED 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) PROHIBITS STATE FROM HAVING SAFETY STANDARD REGULATING ASPECT OF PERFORMACE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARD UNLESS STATE STANDARD IS IDENTICAL TO FEDERAL STANDARD.

GLAZING IS AN ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARDS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 103(a) OF THE STANDARD ACT (15 U.S.C. 1392(a)), NHTSA HAS ESTABLISHED FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR 571.205). STANDARD NO. 205 REGULATES GLAZING MATERIALS IN NEW VEHICLES AS WELL AS REPLACEMENT GLAZING TO BE INSTALLED IN USED VEHICLES. STANDARD REQUIRES THAT ALL GLAZING USED IN CARS TO HAVE LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF AT LEAST 70 PERCENT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT S.B. NO. 57 WOULD PERMIT ADDITION BY ANY PERSON, SUCH AS A DEALER, OF TINTING FILM OR OTHER DEVICE OR MATERIALS TO THE GLAZING IN NEW CARS OR TO THE GLAZING TO BE INSTALLED IN USED CARS SO THAT LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE IS REDUCED BELOW 70 PERCENT, THAT BILL WOULD NOT BE IDENTICAL TO STANDARD NO. 205. ACCORDINGLY, THE BILL WOULD, IN THAT REGARD, BE PREEMPTED UNDER SECTION 103(d).

FURTHER, PRACTICES PROHIBITED BY SAFETY ACT COULD NOT BE MADE LAWFUL BY S.B. NO. 57. ENACTMENT OF THAT BILL WOULD NOT ALTER PROHIBITION IN SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) OF SAFETY ACT AGAINST ALTERING VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT SO AS TO RENDER INOPERATIVE SAFETY FEATURES OR PERFORMANCE INCORPORATED IN THOSE VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT. PROHIBITION APPLIES TO MOTOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS AND MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESSES, BUT NOT TO PERSONS WHO ALTERS HIS OR HER OWN VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT.

EFFECT: OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IS TO PROHIBIT ANY OF LISTED PARTIES FROM INSTALLING " SUN SCREENING DEVICE" ON CAR GLAZING, IF THAT INSTALLATION WOULD REDUCE LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING BELOW 70 PERCENT. THIS PROHIBITION APPLIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER GLAZING IS ALREADY INSTALLED ON CAR OR WHETHER CAR IS NEW OR USED. NHTSA HAS STATED IN PREVIOUS LETTER OF INTERPRETATION THAT AUTO TINT SHOPS OR ANY PERSON WHO INSTALLS SOLAR TINTING FILM ON CAR GLAZING FOR COMPENSATION WOULD BE CONSIDERED MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT DEALER OR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESS AND THUS SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION.

PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) CAN BE SUBSTANTIAL. SECTION 109 OF SAFETY ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THAT SECTION IS SUBJECT TD CIVIL PENALTY OF UP TO $1,000 PER VIOLATION. THUS, IF PERSON VIOLATES SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IN ALTERING 10 CARS, HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY OF UP TO $10,000. SECTION 109 ALLOWS TOTAL PENALTY OF UP TO $800,000 FOR RELATED SERIES OF VIOLATIONS.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT NHTSA INTENDS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ENFORCE SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) PROHIBITION AGAINST IDENTIFIED PARTIES WHO ADD "SUN SCREENING DEVICES" IN VIOLATION OF THAT SECTION.

FINALLY, WE NOTE THAT IF "SUN SCREENING DEVICE" INSTALLED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IS FACTOR IN CAUSING ACCIDENT, INSTALLER MAY BE SUBJECTED TO SUBSTANTIAL LIABILITY AS RESULT OF PRIVATE LAW SUITS.

Original signed by Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 30, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Application of Sun Control Films to Motor Vehicles

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am legal counsel to the Energy Control Products Project of 3M, a division of 3M engaged in the manufacture and sale of sun control films.

On November 10, 1976 your office wrote to Mr. M. P. McNiff of 3M Company regarding the applicability of federal motor vehicle regulations to the sale and application of sun control films. A copy of this letter is attached for your reference.

As you are aware, various state laws and the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission Regulation, VESC-20, have been enacted relative to the use of sun control films since the date of your November 10, 1976 memo to Mr. McNiff, and my office has recently reviewed various inquiries regarding the applicability of these latter regulations and the federal standards. I would therefore appreciate receiving an update to your November 10th memo and a clarification from your office relative to the following matters:

1. Is either the sale or application of sun control films to motor vehicles governed by any provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? If so, to what degree is applicability affected by the following factors:

a) whether the film is applied by a dealer specializing in film application versus a private individual;

b) whether the vehicle is a passenger automobile versus a recreational vehicle; or

c) the location of the application, i.e. to the back windshield versus the front windshield.

2. Are VESC--20 and the various state laws which have been enacted relative to sun control films preempted by federal regulations? If so, pursuant to what statutory authority and to what degree?

Your opinion relative to the foregoing matters would be greatly appreciated. Please forward your comments to my associate Mary Ruth Harsha, Division Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 3M Center, P. 0. Box 33428, St. Paul, MN 55133.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Harsha directly on 612/736-1791.

Very truly yours,

Claudia J. Davis CJD:kmm cc: Mary Ruth Harsha

Enclosure (11/10/76 letter from Frank Berndt to Solar Control Products omitted here.)