As a rule that does not require a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2022, which is no later than the 5th year after the year in which this rule is being adopted.

The Department received three comments regarding the amendments to Part 79, which requires that the annual safety inspection must determine if the vehicle meets the tinting requirements set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law section 375(12-a). The Department appreciates all comments that were submitted.

Comment: Charles E. Sullivan, Jr. submitted comments regarding several issues. He expressed concern that the Subaru Outback would not conform to the requirements set forth in Part 54 and, therefore, would fail the safety inspection required by Part 79. He also asked why multi-purpose vehicles (MPVs) are not covered by the rule, since its purpose is to protect law enforcement officers. He requested definitions for “station wagon” and “multi-purpose vehicles.” He asked if “DMV is intending to revise the RIS, the RFA, the RAFA, and/or the JIS to discuss the cost of bringing a noncomplying vehicle into compliance with the tinted window requirements and who will bear the same (consumer or manufacturer) if the tinted windows came standard on the vehicle.” Finally, he “recommend[s] that the coverage of the implementing regulations be expanded to encompass any motor vehicle subject to motor vehicle inspection.”

Response: The Subaru Outback in question is considered an MPV. Therefore, the rear side windows in these vehicles are not subject to the 70 percent light transmittance requirement and no modifications would be required to such vehicles to comply with the law. MPVs are not covered by the rule, because the State law reflects the federal requirements for window tinting. It would place an unfair burden on customers to require the removal of tint from MPVs that are legally manufactured and sold. Therefore, DMV will not amend the regulations to require that MPVs have the same tinting requirements as passenger vehicles. DMV will not revise the impact statements because there will be no additional cost to customers who operate cars with the appropriate level of tint. There is no definition of station wagon; we defer to the dictionary definition. An MPV is defined in federal law as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.”

Comment: The New York State Association of Service Stations & Repair Shops, Inc. (NYSASSRS) stated that they “are on record as opposing the Window Tinting Requirement now included in the Safety Inspections for New York vehicles.” NYSASSRS requests a hearing about the regulations and its impact on inspection stations.

NYSASSRS explains that the tint meter costs up to $200, takes at least 10 minutes to perform and “can equate to ten dollars or more in labor costs.” NYSASSRS also objects to the fact that the station can pass a car that clearly has no tint but cannot fail a car that the inspector “can tell will not pass inspection,” thus requiring a full testing of the windows. Customers have expressed frustration at the increased length of the inspection. NYSASSRS states that it is confusing as to how to handle failures.

Response: The law does not require that the Department hold a hearing, nor is one is necessary. The regulation clearly describes the basis to pass or fail an inspection based upon the light transmittance of windows and depending on the type and model year of the vehicle. There was no need to add language to the regulation about how to record pass/fail, because the tinting portion of the regulation is simply an additional element of the inspection of the vehicle’s glass. This point was reiterated in the Department’s Office of Vehicle Safety’s message to all stations, on December 27, 2106, advising that the “recording of inspections has not changed. In the NYVIP2 Computerized Inspection System (CVIS), the certified inspector would address Pass or Fail for window tint under the existing ‘Windshield and other Glass’ choice. When a station is required to record their inspections on paper. …a vehicle being rejected for window tint would have a check mark under ‘other’ in column 11.”

NYSASSRS notes that although an inspection station can pass a vehicle that is clearly in compliance with the law, the station cannot fail a person for clear non-compliance. The Department did consider this point, but believes that there are so many gradations of tinting levels that non-compliance is not always obvious. Therefore, in order to insure that a vehicle is not improperly failed, the Department believes that a window should be tested before it is deemed non-compliant.

The Department acknowledges the NYSASSRS’ concerns about the cost and time to perform inspections with the added tint requirement. However, Chapter 444 of the Laws of 2016 required that an examination of the levels of tint be part of the safety inspection, effective January 1, 2017, and the inspection stations are required to comply with this law. In addition, the intent of the law, to provide enhanced protection of law enforcement officers approaching vehicles, is laudable and necessary.

Comment: D. B. Smit, representing the International Window Film Association (IWFA), wrote that his “organization is keenly interested in the rule making surrounding new legislation, now enacted into law regarding window tinting film and vehicle inspections. I am hoping to begin a dialogue with New York DMV and looking for ways in which our industry can help improve understanding of window film and the window film industry. Our aim is to support New York's law and the underlying imperative for protecting law enforcement officers. We also need to provide our industry with the information needed for installers to act within the law.”

Response: The Department responded: “The regulation does not set forth window tinting requirements; those are established in Vehicle and Traffic Law section 375(12-a) and have not changed since 1992. The purpose of the regulation is to provide that, as part of the annual safety inspection, the inspector must assess whether the vehicle complies with the tinting requirements set forth in VTL section 375(12-a). The amendments to Part 54 simply reiterate those requirements. A change in the VTL would require an act of the Legislature, not the DMV.”