80 FR 33326 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Denial of the International Window Film Association's Exemption Application
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 112 (June 11, 2015)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 112 (June 11, 2015)
| Page Range | 33326-33328 | |
| FR Document | 2015-14272 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 33326-33328] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-14272] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0436] Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Denial of the International Window Film Association's Exemption Application AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of exemption application. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: FMCSA denies an exemption application from the International Window Film Association (IWFA) to allow the use of glazing in the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver that does not meet the light transmission requirements specified in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). The current rule permits windshields and side windows of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) to be tinted as long as the light transmission is not restricted to less than 70 percent of normal. While IWFA contended that a reduction of light entering the truck cab interior can (1) significantly improve driver comfort, (2) reduce eye strain, and (3) reduce the heat load of the interior environment, thus making the driver more comfortable as well as lowering energy use for cooling, it failed to provide any evidence that motor carriers operating CMVs equipped with glazing that blocks more normal light than currently permitted will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSV, (202) 366-5370; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21) [Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 401] amended 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs. On August 20, 2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR 51589) implementing section 4007. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public with an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request. The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If the Agency denies the request, it must state the reason for doing so. If the decision is to grant the exemption, the notice must specify the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and the regulatory provision or provisions from which an exemption is granted. The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up to 2 years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)). IWFA Application for Exemption IWFA applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(d) to allow the use of glazing in the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver that does not meet the light transmission requirements specified in the FMCSRs. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice. Section 393.60(d) of the FMCSRs permits coloring or tinting of windshields and the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, as long as the ``parallel luminous transmittance through the colored or tinted glazing is not less than 70 percent of the light at normal incidence in those portions of the windshield or windows which are marked as having a parallel luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent.'' The transmittance restriction does not apply to other windows on the commercial motor vehicle. In its application, IWFA states: Many commercial operators, however, have been unable to obtain the approved film products in a timely and local basis; this has generated a significant volume of inquiries to federal, state, and association offices. We are therefore requesting a favorable consideration for the use of a market-standard 50%-type of film with a 7% measurement tolerance (to accommodate variances in glass, glass condition, film manufacturing variation, and meter differences.) This would allow the standard 50%-type film to be used on CMVs for the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver. This film is the same minimum visibility requirement used in the majority of states for automobiles and is essentially ``clear'' to the extent that, in most cases, it is difficult to determine if a vehicle even has had film applied. Since a reduction of light entering the truck cab interior will decrease not only available visible light but also scattered light (sometimes called ``interference haze'' by optical researchers), it can significantly improve driver comfort and reduce eye strain while also allowing films to be used which can also reduce the heat load of the interior environment, thus making the driver more comfortable as well as lowering energy use for cooling. [[Page 33327]] In support of its application, IWFA also provided an excerpt from an article titled ``Safety Benefits and Costs of Tinted Glazing'' published in 1988 by Harold Wakeley of the IIT Research Institute of Chicago. In addition, IWFA stated: This level of application would retain the industry's commitment to the enforcement community and also provide the commercial fleet operator with the expanded benefits of a larger number of film products which can provide energy and emissions improvements. It should be noted that while there may be no additional improvement in UV protection from that received by the current standard of 70 percent, the added benefit of fuel savings (and therefore greenhouse gas reductions) as well as reduced glare (haze) and enhanced driver comfort are greatly expanded by the benefits associated with the use of the requested level of film on CMVs. Safety Requirements Section 393.60(a) of the FMCSRs requires that ``Glazing material used in windshields, windows, and doors on a motor vehicle manufactured on or after December 25, 1968, shall at a minimum meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 in effect on the date of manufacture of the motor vehicle.'' NHTSA is authorized to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. These safety standards establish minimum performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in order to ``reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents'' [49 U.S.C. 30101]. Under this authority, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 205, ``Glazing materials,'' which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 205 specifies performance requirements and permissible locations for the types of glazing that may be installed in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z26.1, ``Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,'' (Z26). The requirements in Z26 are specified in terms of performance tests that the various types of glazing must pass. One of the tests is for luminous, or light, transmittance. This test measures the regular (parallel) transmittance of a sample of the glazing, in terms of the percentage of incident light that passes through the glazing. During the test, light strikes the glazing at a 90 degree angle. To pass the test, the glazing must allow 70 percent of the incident light to pass through. The amount of light transmitted through vehicle glazing affects the ability of the driver to see objects on the road. Low light transmittance can make it difficult to detect low contrast objects, such as pedestrians, whose luminance and coloring causes them to blend with the background of the roadside environment. The effect of low light transmittance levels on the driver's vision is most pronounced at dusk and night when the ambient light level is low. This is because the ``contrast sensitivity'' of the eye diminishes as the overall brightness of the scene decreases. This lower contrast sensitivity makes it especially difficult to discern low contrast objects. This problem is most acute for older drivers who have poorer contrast sensitivity. Contrast sensitivity declines by a factor of two about every 20 years after age 30. Thus, older drivers have poorer dusk and night vision. The light transmittance requirements must be met by all glazing installed in windows that are ``requisite for driving visibility.'' For CMVs, glazing that meets the 70 percent light transmittance requirement is required in the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver. Section 393.60 of the FMCSRs does not require other windows on CMVs (i.e., rear windows) to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement, as Section 393.80 of the FMCSRs requires every bus, truck, and truck tractor to be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each side, firmly attached to the outside of the motor vehicle and so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear, along both sides of the vehicle. These rear-vision mirrors must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, ``Rearview mirrors,'' in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured. NHTSA Rulemaking and Report to Congress On August 10, 1988, a group of businesses submitted a petition for rulemaking to NHTSA on the issue of light transmissibility for motor vehicle glazing. Specifically, NHTSA was petitioned to amend FMVSS No. 205 to permit 35 percent minimum luminous transmittance plastic film on glazing in the side and rear locations of passenger cars. The petition was accompanied by a report, ``Safety Benefits and Costs of Tinted Vehicle Glazing'' by the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute (IITRI)--the same report cited by IWFA in the subject exemption application. On July 20, 1989, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register granting the petition and requesting public comment on the issues raised in the petition (54 FR 36427). The House Appropriations Committee Report accompanying the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1991 requested NHTSA to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the adequacy of current regulations governing window tinting. In March 1991, NHTSA issued a Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows which, among other things, concluded:While it is not possible to quantify the safety effects of lowering the light transmittance through window tinting, data indicate that extensive tinting can reduce the ability of drivers to detect objects, which could lead to an increase in crashes. The benefits of tinting do not appear great enough to justify any loss in safety that may be associated with allowing excessive tinting of windows. Further, technology already being applied in production car windows can reduce the heat build up in the occupant compartment while preserving the driver's visibility. A greater reduction in the ability of drivers to see through the windshield, rear window or front side windows would be expected to decrease highway safety. On January 22, 1992, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to amend FMVSS No. 205 to (1) revise the light transmittance requirements to replicate real-world conditions more closely, (2) adjust the required light transmittance levels in the standard in response to the new test procedure and other considerations, and (3) make the light transmittance requirements consistent for passenger cars and light trucks (57 FR 2496). On July 14, 1998, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing the proposed amendments to FMVSS No. 205 to revise its light transmittance requirements (63 FR 36427). In part, NHTSA concluded that there was limited prospect of commensurate increases in visibility and safety, and indicated that it wanted to better define the relationship between light transmittance and highway safety before requiring differing transmittance values for different vehicle windows. Public Comments On January 23, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of the IWFA application and asked for public comment (79 FR 3916). The Agency received 16 comments. The Agency received 12 comments in support of IWFA's exemption application, including 10 from individual drivers, one from a motor [[Page 33328]] carrier representative, and one from the American Trucking Associations (ATA), a united federation of motor carriers, state trucking associations, and national trucking conferences. The individual drivers and the motor carrier representative cited many of the same (or similar) benefits identified by IWFA in its exemption application in support of allowing the use of glazing that blocks more normal light than currently permitted, including (1) reduced glare, (2) reduced eye stress/strain, tiredness, and headaches due to heat, (3) increased driver comfort and awareness due to decreased cab temperatures, (4) increased privacy at truck stops, (5) reduced risk of skin cancer, and (6) increased availability and lower cost when compared to compliant glazing. ATA supported the exemption application, stating that it ``believes that this exemption will not adversely impact safety and may help reduce heat load thereby lowering energy use and improving fuel economy.'' FMCSA Response: None of the commenters that supported the exemption application provided any data or information to demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety would be maintained with the reduction in light transmittance. FMCSA agrees with NHTSA's previous conclusions that (1) the suggested benefits of reduced light transmission levels are minimal and can be better achieved through other means, and (2) a reduction in the ability of drivers to see through the windshield, rear window or front side windows would be expected to decrease highway safety. Consistent with the previous findings by NHTSA, FMCSA believes that any potential benefits of reduced light transmittance are not great enough to justify any corresponding loss in safety that may be associated such reduction. The Agency received four comments opposed to IWFA's exemption application, including two from individual drivers, one from a retired police officer, and one from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates). The individual drivers noted that window tinting (1) reduces visibility, explicitly at night, and (2) inhibits the ability to establish eye contact with other drivers and pedestrians at intersections. The retired police office cited concerns regarding the safety of law enforcement officials, noting that tinted windows make it more difficult to see how many persons are occupying vehicles, and possible weapons, drugs, or contraband on board the CMV. Advocates stated that as the IWFA exemption, if granted, would apply to all CMVs, it was concerned that: [t]he exemption would amount to a whole cloth change of current regulation for all commercial motor vehicles which should more appropriately be handled through rulemaking rather than exemption procedures. Advocates is further concerned that should this exemption be granted, at the end of the two-year exemption period there would be widespread non-compliance unless the exemption were extended, which would lead to repetitive requests for renewal of the exemption. This situation would effectively eliminate the current regulation, or require that portion of the fleet using the proposed film to replace the window films or glazing in order to conform to the existing rule without the exemption. The FMCSA should deny the present petition and address the proposal through the rulemaking process. In addition, Advocates states that IWFA ``neither performed nor included any form of safety analysis in the Application nor provided any form of explanation as to how the Applicant would ensure that the proposed alternative window film light transmission levels would achieve an equivalent level of safety as required by both statute and regulation.'' Specifically, Advocates stated: [t]here is no discussion of safety or the impact that decreased light transmission may have under other conditions, such as at night when this may reduce the driver's ability to view objects and vehicles through the side windows and mirrors. While the Applicant does cite a decades old paper on the benefits of reduced light transmittance, there is no discussion of this effect in any way, let alone in terms of safety, on the operation of a commercial vehicle. Additionally the citing of summary findings from a single work of decades old research in no way qualifies as an ``assessment of safety'' as required by statute and regulation. FMCSA response: The comments regarding reduced visibility, especially at night, are consistent with previous NHTSA findings, and FMCSA agrees that this reduced visibility would likely lead to a reduction in safety. FMCSA agrees with Advocates that none of the commenters that supported the exemption application provided any data or information to demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety would be maintained with the reduction in light transmittance. Lacking any such data or information, FMCSA is unable to make a determination--as required in 49 CFR 381.305(a)--that motor carriers would be able to maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption. FMCSA Decision The purpose of FMVSS No. 205 is to (1) reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, (2) minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions, and, specifically with respect to the subject IWFA exemption application, (3) ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility. While IWFA contended that a reduction of light entering the truck cab interior can (1) significantly improve driver comfort, (2) reduce eye strain, and (3) reduce the heat load of the interior environment thus making the driver more comfortable as well as lowering energy use for cooling, it failed to provide any evidence that motor carriers operating CMVs equipped with glazing that blocks more normal light than currently permitted will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation. NHTSA's 1991 Report to Congress acknowledged that ``Although all studies show a lowering of the ability to detect targets as tint level increases, it is not possible to predict accurately the numerical relationship between accidents and tinting.'' At the same time, however, the same report states ``The loss, due to excessive tinting and its effect on light transmittance, of the ability to see low contrast objects such as people, animals or unlighted vehicles is clearly a safety problem.'' [Emphasis added]. Based on all of the above, FMCSA has made a determination to deny the IWFA exemption application. Absent any amendments to FMVSS No. 205 and/or ANSI Z26.1 referenced therein, and lacking any objective data or analyses demonstrating that a reduction of the required light transmittance from 70 percent to 50 percent in CMVs will not adversely affect the level of safety of CMV operations, FMCSA is unable to make a determination--as required in 49 CFR 381.305(a)--that motor carriers would be able to maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption. Issued on: May 27, 2015. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. 2015-14272 Filed 6-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
![33326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices
A. Cimei, and Ronald J. Gruszecki ACTION: Denial of exemption The decision of the Agency must be
exemptions from the Federal vision application. published in the Federal Register (49
standard. CFR 381.315(b)). If the Agency denies
SUMMARY: FMCSA denies an exemption the request, it must state the reason for
IV. Conclusion application from the International doing so. If the decision is to grant the
Based upon its evaluation of the 21 Window Film Association (IWFA) to exemption, the notice must specify the
exemption applications, FMCSA allow the use of glazing in the windows person or class of persons receiving the
exempts the following drivers from the to the immediate right and left of the exemption and the regulatory provision
vision requirement in 49 CFR driver that does not meet the light or provisions from which an exemption
391.41(b)(10), subject to the transmission requirements specified in is granted. The notice must also specify
requirements cited above (49 CFR the Federal Motor Carrier Safety the effective period of the exemption
391.64(b)): Regulations (FMCSR). The current rule
(up to 2 years) and explain the terms
Neal S. Anderson (MN) permits windshields and side windows
and conditions of the exemption. The
Robert D. Arkwright (MS) of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) to
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
Charles D. Ashworth, Jr. (KY) be tinted as long as the light
381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)).
Randy A. Cimei (IL) transmission is not restricted to less
Ronald J. Gruszecki (IL) than 70 percent of normal. While IWFA IWFA Application for Exemption
Gerald L. Harper (MO) contended that a reduction of light IWFA applied for an exemption from
Alan L. Helfer, Sr. (IL) entering the truck cab interior can (1) 49 CFR 393.60(d) to allow the use of
Steven R. Jones (KS) significantly improve driver comfort, (2) glazing in the windows to the
William F. Laforce (VT) reduce eye strain, and (3) reduce the immediate right and left of the driver
Robert N. Lewis (OH) heat load of the interior environment, that does not meet the light
Ryan T. McKinney (TN) thus making the driver more transmission requirements specified in
Freeman A. Miller (OH) comfortable as well as lowering energy the FMCSRs. A copy of the application
Larry G. Murray (LA) use for cooling, it failed to provide any is included in the docket referenced at
Thomas W. Oberschlake (OH) evidence that motor carriers operating the beginning of this notice.
Dennis R. Ohl (MO) CMVs equipped with glazing that blocks Section 393.60(d) of the FMCSRs
J.W. Peebles (TN) more normal light than currently
Craig C. Perrotta (MA) permits coloring or tinting of
permitted will achieve a level of safety windshields and the windows to the
Raymond W. Pitts (FL) that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
Jeffrey A. Porter (CT) immediate right and left of the driver, as
level of safety that would be obtained by long as the ‘‘parallel luminous
Marty J. Prouty (IA) complying with the regulation.
Daniel A. Rau (NJ) transmittance through the colored or
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. tinted glazing is not less than 70 percent
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside
and 31315, each exemption will be valid of the light at normal incidence in those
Operations Division, Office of Bus and portions of the windshield or windows
for 2 years unless revoked earlier by Truck Standards and Operations, MC–
FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked which are marked as having a parallel
PSV, (202) 366–5370; Federal Motor luminous transmittance of not less than
if: (1) The person fails to comply with Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
the terms and conditions of the 70 percent.’’ The transmittance
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, restriction does not apply to other
exemption; (2) the exemption has DC 20590–0001.
resulted in a lower level of safety than windows on the commercial motor
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: vehicle.
was maintained before it was granted; or
(3) continuation of the exemption would Background In its application, IWFA states:
not be consistent with the goals and Section 4007 of the Transportation Many commercial operators, however,
objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315. Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA– have been unable to obtain the approved film
If the exemption is still effective at the products in a timely and local basis; this has
21) [Pub. L. 105–178, June 9, 1998, 112 generated a significant volume of inquiries to
end of the 2-year period, the person may Stat. 401] amended 49 U.S.C. 31315 and federal, state, and association offices. We are
apply to FMCSA for a renewal under 31136(e) to provide authority to grant therefore requesting a favorable consideration
procedures in effect at that time. exemptions from the FMCSRs. On for the use of a market-standard 50%-type of
Issued on: May 29, 2015. August 20, 2004, FMCSA published a film with a 7% measurement tolerance (to
Larry W. Minor, final rule (69 FR 51589) implementing accommodate variances in glass, glass
section 4007. Under this rule, FMCSA condition, film manufacturing variation, and
Associate Administrator for Policy.
must publish a notice of each exemption meter differences.) This would allow the
[FR Doc. 2015–14273 Filed 6–10–15; 8:45 am] standard 50%-type film to be used on CMVs
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P for the windows to the immediate right and
381.315(a)). The Agency must provide left of the driver. This film is the same
the public with an opportunity to minimum visibility requirement used in the
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION inspect the information relevant to the majority of states for automobiles and is
application, including any safety essentially ‘‘clear’’ to the extent that, in most
Federal Motor Carrier Safety analyses that have been conducted. The cases, it is difficult to determine if a vehicle
Administration Agency must also provide an even has had film applied. Since a reduction
opportunity for public comment on the of light entering the truck cab interior will
[[Docket No. FMCSA–2013–0436] decrease not only available visible light but
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
request.
The Agency reviews the safety also scattered light (sometimes called
Parts and Accessories Necessary for ‘‘interference haze’’ by optical researchers), it
analyses and the public comments and
Safe Operation; Denial of the can significantly improve driver comfort and
determines whether granting the
International Window Film reduce eye strain while also allowing films
exemption would likely achieve a level to be used which can also reduce the heat
Association’s Exemption Application
of safety equivalent to or greater than load of the interior environment, thus making
AGENCY:Federal Motor Carrier Safety the level that would be achieved by the the driver more comfortable as well as
Administration (FMCSA), DOT. current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). lowering energy use for cooling.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_33438/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 33327
In support of its application, IWFA The amount of light transmitted requesting public comment on the
also provided an excerpt from an article through vehicle glazing affects the issues raised in the petition (54 FR
titled ‘‘Safety Benefits and Costs of ability of the driver to see objects on the 36427).
Tinted Glazing’’ published in 1988 by road. Low light transmittance can make The House Appropriations Committee
Harold Wakeley of the IIT Research it difficult to detect low contrast objects, Report accompanying the Department of
Institute of Chicago. such as pedestrians, whose luminance Transportation Appropriations Act for
In addition, IWFA stated: and coloring causes them to blend with Fiscal Year 1991 requested NHTSA to
This level of application would retain the the background of the roadside report to the House and Senate
industry’s commitment to the enforcement environment. The effect of low light Committees on Appropriations on the
community and also provide the commercial transmittance levels on the driver’s adequacy of current regulations
fleet operator with the expanded benefits of vision is most pronounced at dusk and governing window tinting. In March
a larger number of film products which can night when the ambient light level is 1991, NHTSA issued a Report to
provide energy and emissions improvements. low. This is because the ‘‘contrast Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle
It should be noted that while there may be sensitivity’’ of the eye diminishes as the
no additional improvement in UV protection
Windows which, among other things,
from that received by the current standard of overall brightness of the scene concluded:
70 percent, the added benefit of fuel savings decreases. This lower contrast • While it is not possible to quantify the
(and therefore greenhouse gas reductions) as sensitivity makes it especially difficult safety effects of lowering the light
well as reduced glare (haze) and enhanced to discern low contrast objects. This transmittance through window tinting, data
driver comfort are greatly expanded by the problem is most acute for older drivers indicate that extensive tinting can reduce the
benefits associated with the use of the who have poorer contrast sensitivity. ability of drivers to detect objects, which
requested level of film on CMVs. Contrast sensitivity declines by a factor could lead to an increase in crashes.
of two about every 20 years after age 30. • The benefits of tinting do not appear
Safety Requirements great enough to justify any loss in safety that
Thus, older drivers have poorer dusk
Section 393.60(a) of the FMCSRs may be associated with allowing excessive
and night vision. tinting of windows. Further, technology
requires that ‘‘Glazing material used in The light transmittance requirements
windshields, windows, and doors on a already being applied in production car
must be met by all glazing installed in windows can reduce the heat build up in the
motor vehicle manufactured on or after windows that are ‘‘requisite for driving occupant compartment while preserving the
December 25, 1968, shall at a minimum visibility.’’ For CMVs, glazing that meets driver’s visibility. A greater reduction in the
meet the requirements of Federal Motor the 70 percent light transmittance ability of drivers to see through the
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. requirement is required in the windshield, rear window or front side
205 in effect on the date of manufacture windshield and the windows to the windows would be expected to decrease
of the motor vehicle.’’ immediate left and right of the driver. highway safety.
NHTSA is authorized to issue safety Section 393.60 of the FMCSRs does not On January 22, 1992, NHTSA
standards applicable to new motor require other windows on CMVs (i.e., published a notice of proposed
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment rear windows) to meet the 70 percent rulemaking in the Federal Register to
under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. These light transmittance requirement, as amend FMVSS No. 205 to (1) revise the
safety standards establish minimum Section 393.80 of the FMCSRs requires light transmittance requirements to
performance requirements for motor every bus, truck, and truck tractor to be replicate real-world conditions more
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, closely, (2) adjust the required light
in order to ‘‘reduce traffic accidents and one at each side, firmly attached to the transmittance levels in the standard in
deaths and injuries resulting from traffic outside of the motor vehicle and so response to the new test procedure and
accidents’’ [49 U.S.C. 30101]. Under this located as to reflect to the driver a view other considerations, and (3) make the
authority, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. of the highway to the rear, along both light transmittance requirements
205, ‘‘Glazing materials,’’ which applies sides of the vehicle. These rear-vision consistent for passenger cars and light
to all new vehicles and all new glazing mirrors must meet the requirements of trucks (57 FR 2496).
materials for use in motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 111, ‘‘Rearview mirrors,’’ in On July 14, 1998, NHTSA published
FMVSS No. 205 specifies performance effect at the time the vehicle was a notice in the Federal Register
requirements and permissible locations manufactured. withdrawing the proposed amendments
for the types of glazing that may be to FMVSS No. 205 to revise its light
installed in motor vehicles. The NHTSA Rulemaking and Report to
transmittance requirements (63 FR
standard incorporates by reference Congress
36427). In part, NHTSA concluded that
American National Standards Institute On August 10, 1988, a group of there was limited prospect of
(ANSI) Standard Z26.1, ‘‘Safety Code for businesses submitted a petition for commensurate increases in visibility
Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing rulemaking to NHTSA on the issue of and safety, and indicated that it wanted
Motor Vehicles Operating on Land light transmissibility for motor vehicle to better define the relationship between
Highways,’’ (Z26). The requirements in glazing. Specifically, NHTSA was light transmittance and highway safety
Z26 are specified in terms of petitioned to amend FMVSS No. 205 to before requiring differing transmittance
performance tests that the various types permit 35 percent minimum luminous values for different vehicle windows.
of glazing must pass. transmittance plastic film on glazing in
One of the tests is for luminous, or the side and rear locations of passenger Public Comments
light, transmittance. This test measures cars. The petition was accompanied by On January 23, 2014, FMCSA
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the regular (parallel) transmittance of a a report, ‘‘Safety Benefits and Costs of published a notice of the IWFA
sample of the glazing, in terms of the Tinted Vehicle Glazing’’ by the Illinois application and asked for public
percentage of incident light that passes Institute of Technology Research comment (79 FR 3916). The Agency
through the glazing. During the test, Institute (IITRI)—the same report cited received 16 comments.
light strikes the glazing at a 90 degree by IWFA in the subject exemption The Agency received 12 comments in
angle. To pass the test, the glazing must application. On July 20, 1989, NHTSA support of IWFA’s exemption
allow 70 percent of the incident light to published a notice in the Federal application, including 10 from
pass through. Register granting the petition and individual drivers, one from a motor
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_33438/page/2.svg)
![33328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices
carrier representative, and one from the Advocates stated that as the IWFA to glazing surfaces, (2) minimize the
American Trucking Associations (ATA), exemption, if granted, would apply to possibility of occupants being thrown
a united federation of motor carriers, all CMVs, it was concerned that: through the vehicle windows in
state trucking associations, and national [t]he exemption would amount to a whole collisions, and, specifically with respect
trucking conferences. The individual cloth change of current regulation for all to the subject IWFA exemption
drivers and the motor carrier commercial motor vehicles which should application, (3) ensure a necessary
representative cited many of the same more appropriately be handled through degree of transparency in motor vehicle
(or similar) benefits identified by IWFA rulemaking rather than exemption
procedures. Advocates is further concerned
windows for driver visibility. While
in its exemption application in support IWFA contended that a reduction of
that should this exemption be granted, at the
of allowing the use of glazing that end of the two-year exemption period there light entering the truck cab interior can
blocks more normal light than currently would be widespread non-compliance unless (1) significantly improve driver comfort,
permitted, including (1) reduced glare, the exemption were extended, which would (2) reduce eye strain, and (3) reduce the
(2) reduced eye stress/strain, tiredness, lead to repetitive requests for renewal of the
heat load of the interior environment
and headaches due to heat, (3) increased exemption. This situation would effectively
eliminate the current regulation, or require thus making the driver more
driver comfort and awareness due to comfortable as well as lowering energy
that portion of the fleet using the proposed
decreased cab temperatures, (4)
film to replace the window films or glazing use for cooling, it failed to provide any
increased privacy at truck stops, (5) in order to conform to the existing rule evidence that motor carriers operating
reduced risk of skin cancer, and (6) without the exemption. The FMCSA should CMVs equipped with glazing that blocks
increased availability and lower cost deny the present petition and address the
more normal light than currently
when compared to compliant glazing. proposal through the rulemaking process.
ATA supported the exemption permitted will achieve a level of safety
In addition, Advocates states that that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
application, stating that it ‘‘believes that IWFA ‘‘neither performed nor included
this exemption will not adversely level of safety that would be obtained by
any form of safety analysis in the complying with the regulation.
impact safety and may help reduce heat Application nor provided any form of
load thereby lowering energy use and explanation as to how the Applicant NHTSA’s 1991 Report to Congress
improving fuel economy.’’ would ensure that the proposed acknowledged that ‘‘Although all
FMCSA Response: None of the alternative window film light studies show a lowering of the ability to
commenters that supported the transmission levels would achieve an detect targets as tint level increases, it
exemption application provided any equivalent level of safety as required by is not possible to predict accurately the
data or information to demonstrate that both statute and regulation.’’ numerical relationship between
an equivalent level of safety would be Specifically, Advocates stated: accidents and tinting.’’ At the same
maintained with the reduction in light [t]here is no discussion of safety or the time, however, the same report states
transmittance. FMCSA agrees with impact that decreased light transmission may ‘‘The loss, due to excessive tinting and
NHTSA’s previous conclusions that (1) have under other conditions, such as at night its effect on light transmittance, of the
the suggested benefits of reduced light when this may reduce the driver’s ability to ability to see low contrast objects such
view objects and vehicles through the side
transmission levels are minimal and can as people, animals or unlighted vehicles
windows and mirrors. While the Applicant
be better achieved through other means, does cite a decades old paper on the benefits is clearly a safety problem.’’ [Emphasis
and (2) a reduction in the ability of of reduced light transmittance, there is no added].
drivers to see through the windshield, discussion of this effect in any way, let alone Based on all of the above, FMCSA has
rear window or front side windows in terms of safety, on the operation of a
made a determination to deny the IWFA
would be expected to decrease highway commercial vehicle. Additionally the citing
of summary findings from a single work of exemption application. Absent any
safety. Consistent with the previous
decades old research in no way qualifies as amendments to FMVSS No. 205 and/or
findings by NHTSA, FMCSA believes
an ‘‘assessment of safety’’ as required by ANSI Z26.1 referenced therein, and
that any potential benefits of reduced statute and regulation. lacking any objective data or analyses
light transmittance are not great enough
FMCSA response: The comments demonstrating that a reduction of the
to justify any corresponding loss in
safety that may be associated such regarding reduced visibility, especially required light transmittance from 70
reduction. at night, are consistent with previous percent to 50 percent in CMVs will not
NHTSA findings, and FMCSA agrees adversely affect the level of safety of
The Agency received four comments that this reduced visibility would likely CMV operations, FMCSA is unable to
opposed to IWFA’s exemption lead to a reduction in safety. FMCSA make a determination—as required in
application, including two from agrees with Advocates that none of the 49 CFR 381.305(a)—that motor carriers
individual drivers, one from a retired commenters that supported the would be able to maintain a level of
police officer, and one from Advocates exemption application provided any safety equivalent to, or greater than, the
for Highway and Auto Safety data or information to demonstrate that level achieved without the exemption.
(Advocates). The individual drivers an equivalent level of safety would be
noted that window tinting (1) reduces maintained with the reduction in light Issued on: May 27, 2015.
visibility, explicitly at night, and (2) transmittance. Lacking any such data or T.F. Scott Darling, III,
inhibits the ability to establish eye information, FMCSA is unable to make Chief Counsel.
contact with other drivers and a determination—as required in 49 CFR [FR Doc. 2015–14272 Filed 6–10–15; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
pedestrians at intersections. The retired 381.305(a)—that motor carriers would BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
police office cited concerns regarding be able to maintain a level of safety
the safety of law enforcement officials, equivalent to, or greater than, the level
noting that tinted windows make it achieved without the exemption.
more difficult to see how many persons
are occupying vehicles, and possible FMCSA Decision
weapons, drugs, or contraband on board The purpose of FMVSS No. 205 is to
the CMV. (1) reduce injuries resulting from impact
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_33438/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 15:07:07
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 15:07:07
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Denial of exemption application. | |
| Contact | Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSV, (202) 366-5370; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 33326 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR