Interpretation ID: 1984-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Deane; Snowdon; Shutler & Gherardi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John Russell Deane III Deane, Snowdon, Shutler & Gherardi 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Deane:

This responds to your letter of May 15, 1984, to Stephen Oesch of my staff, concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. The following discussion addresses the agency's interpretation of the standard that you discussed with Mr. Oesch and the question concerning the luminous transmittance requirements in passenger cars that you raised in your letter.

You are correct that the standard regulates the glazing installed in motor vehicles and that the agency has stated that window coverings, such as solar tinting film, are not glazing for the purposes of the standard. You are also correct that the anti-tampering requirement of section 108(a)(2)(A) preclude the installation of window coverings by certain individuals, if the installation would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with Standard No. 205. Finally, you are correct that the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205 do not apply to windows behind the driver in buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) and trucks when those windows are not requisite for driving visibility.

The issue of whether Standard No. 205 would preempt a State standard on window covering must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As a general matter, Standard No. 205 would not preempt State laws on window covering unless those laws appear to authorize the installation of window coverings on a new vehicle prior to its first sale and the installation of the window covering would mean that the vehicle's glazing no longer complies with Standard. No. 205. As to the abrasion resistance requirements of Standard No. 205, while you are correct that they do not directly apply to window coverings, the installation of a window covering on a vehicle may render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard.

Finally, you requested information concerning the luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars. Subsequent to your meeting, Mr. Oesch provided you with the agency's interpretation letter of February 15, 1974, concerning windows in a passenger car which are requisite for driving visibility. The reason that the agency distinguishes between the luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars and those for buses, MPV's and trucks is due to the differing rearward visibility requirements set in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors for those different types of vehicles. Standard No. 111 requires all passenger cars to have an inside rearview mirror, so it is necessary to ensure that the rear window of a passenger car has sufficient luminous transmittance to allow the driver to use the rearview mirror. Unlike MPV's, buses and trucks, passenger cars are not required to have an outside rearview mirror on the passenger's side. Therefore, the agency believes that the side windows to the rear of the driver of a passenger car must have sufficient luminous transmittance to allow the driver to have an adequate view through those windows to the rear of the car.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Stephen L. Oesch Chief Counsel General Law Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on Thursday, May 10, 1984 to discuss certain interpretations of FMVSS 205. As I mentioned during our meeting, I represent the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) which numbers among its members most of the manufacturers of various decorative window coverings. We have for some time attempted to develop objectively stated standards for use by the states in their regulation of these products. One of our manufacturer's major problems is the lack of uniformity in the state standards. We were successful in having the VESC adopt a model standard and have attempted to have that standard enacted by law or regulation in as many states as possible.

We are concerned that certain problems regarding state standards may have been exacerbated by certain correspondence between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and various state authorities. Specifically, this correspondence includes the letters from Hugh Oates to Paul J. Phillipson, dated February 17, 1983 and from Frank Berndt to B. E. Diehl, dated December 20, 1983.

While the message conveyed by those letters may have been misinterpreted, I believe that SEMA and your office agree on the current interpretation of FMVSS 205, except in one regard. First, FMVSS 205 covers within its scope window glazing which is installed in various vehicles and does not regulate the use of various window coverings. It is clear, however, that the antitampering provisions of the law would preclude the use of various materials by certain individuals, if the use of such materials would render inoperative the safety standard in question. Second, in its present form, FMVSS 205 is not preemptive of state laws which seek to deal with window covering products since the federal standard does not deal with such products. Third, FMVSS 205 does not impose the abrasion test on window covering materials. This is the case inasmuch as the standard does not apply to such window covering materials, and even if it did, the abrasion test is inapplicable to window glazing utilized in locations where there is no requirement for luminous transmittance. Our final point of agreement is that FMVSS 205 does not require luminous transmittance through windows behind the driver in multipurpose passenger vehicles vans and trucks where such windows are not requisite for driving visibility.

It would appear that the only area where we do not yet agree is with regard to the requirement for luminous transmittance through windows behind the driver of a passenger car. I believe that, as is the case with MPV, there is no requirement for luminous transmittance unless the window is requisite for driving visibility.

During our meeting I had requested that you provide me with copies of various documents where the policy of NHTSA had been expressed on the issue of luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars. I had also requested any materials that you might have which discuss the rationale for a distinction between passenger cars and MPVs. Further, if it is possible to delineate any concerns which might warrant a distinction between MPV and passenger cars, it would be very helpful to us in finding ways of dealing with such concerns.

After we have had an opportunity to review the materials which you are providing us, I would very much appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the issue with you further. In the meantime, if there are any materials which we have which might be of use to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you again for meeting with me and for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

JOHN RUSSELL DEANE III cc: Calvin Hill Roger Greene Chuck Blum Bob Burch