Interpretation ID: 19376-1.pja
The Honorable Tim Holden
Member, United States House of Representatives
Berks County Services Center
633 Court Street
Reading, PA 19601
Re: Mr. Gary Issod
Dear Representative Holden:
This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Gary Issod of Reading, regarding Federal regulations on window tinting and how they relate to the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the Federal requirements for window tinting.
Mr. Issod objects to a Pennsylvania law requiring automobile windows to transmit at least 70 percent of the incident light. Mr. Issod believes that the State law is based on an erroneous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, which regulates automotive glazing materials (windows). As explained below, Pennsylvania correctly interprets Standard No. 205, and we have determined that the State law is not preempted.
By way of background, NHTSA has the authority, under 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this statute, we issued Safety Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for vehicle glazing. The standard includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Although the standard does not apply to vehicles once the vehicle has been sold to a consumer, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of our statute prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Therefore, the act of tinting any car window to transmittance levels darker than 70 percent is a violation of section 30122(b), if it is performed by one of the regulated businesses listed above.
We do not regulate or limit owners tinting their vehicle windows, although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than that allowed by Standard No. 205 for new vehicles. Moreover, NHTSA does not regulate the use of vehicles. Instead, the operation or use of vehicles is under the jurisdiction of the States.
States have the authority to regulate how vehicles are operated or used, as long as the State law is not preempted by Federal law. State operational restrictions addressing an aspect of performance regulated by the Federal standard would be preempted by Federal law only to the extent that they prohibit the use of vehicles that comply with Federal regulations.
Examining Pennsylvania's law, as outlined in the letter you forwarded from Assistant Counsel Sanders, we find that the Pennsylvania law is not preempted by NHTSA's regulations. Pennsylvania's law does not prohibit the use of vehicles with windows allowing 70 percent light transmittance. It requires the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard. There appears to be no conflict between the State and Federal glazing standards, with regard to the light transmittance issue.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
NCC-20:PAtelsek:6-2992:OCC# 19376:1/21/99
NHTSA # ES99010044, DOT # 984688
ref: FMVSS 205
I10, I20, NOA-01, NOA-02, NOA-03, NOA-04,NOA-10
cc: NCC-20 Subj/Chron,
NCC-20 PJA, NPS-01, NSA-01
Interp.: 205, Redbook (2)
Re: Mr. Gary Issod
Dear Representative Holden:
This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Gary Issod of Reading, regarding Federal regulations on window tinting and how they relate to the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the Federal requirements for window tinting.
Mr. Issod objects to a Pennsylvania law requiring automobile windows to transmit at least 70 percent of the incident light. Mr. Issod believes that the State law is based on an erroneous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, which regulates automotive glazing materials (windows). As explained below, Pennsylvania correctly interprets Standard No. 205, and we have determined that the State law is not preempted.
By way of background, NHTSA has the authority, under 49 USC 30111, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We issued Safety Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for vehicle glazing. The standard includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Although the standard does not apply to vehicles once the vehicle has been sold to a consumer, section 30122(b) of our statute prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Therefore, the act of tinting any car window to transmittance levels darker than 70 percent is a violation of 30122(b), if it is performed by one of the regulated businesses listed above.
NHTSA's regulations do not apply to the use of vehicles by their owners. We do not regulate or limit owners tinting their vehicle windows, although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than that allowed by Standard No. 205 for new vehicles. Instead, the operation or use of vehicles is under the jurisdiction of the States.
States have the authority to regulate how vehicles are operated or used, as long as the State law is not preempted by Federal law. Preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is addressed by section 30103(b)(1) of our statute, which states, in pertinent part: "[w]hen a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect . . . a State . . . may prescribe . . . a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [Federal standard]." State laws would be preempted by Federal law to the extent that they regulate the same aspect of performance in a different way, or permit an action that is prohibited by the Federal regulations (such as permitting the sale of noncomplying vehicles, not allowing the sale of complying vehicles, or permitting businesses to tint windows darker than 70 percent transmittance). As long as the State law restricts itself to regulating the operation or use (as opposed to the sale or modification) of vehicles, it would not be preempted by Federal law.
Examining Pennsylvania's law, as outlined in the letter you forwarded from Assistant Counsel Sanders, we find that the Pennsylvania law is not preempted by NHTSA's regulations. Pennsylvania's law does not permit businesses to tint vehicle windows darker than 70 percent light transmittance. It requires maintenance of the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard. There appears to be no conflict between the State and Federal glazing standards, with regard to the light transmittance issue.
Further, the relevant State provision, 75 Pa. C.S. 4524(e)(1), states "[n]o person shall drive any motor vehicle . . ." (emphasis added). No part of the law quoted by Mr. Sanders appears to regulate anything beyond the operation of vehicles or the criteria for inspection. It does not restrict the operation of vehicles that are manufactured in compliance with Federal regulations that concern the same aspect of performance addressed by the State standard. Finally, Pennsylvania's law does not permit businesses to tint vehicle windows darker than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, it requires maintenance of the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.2/11/99