Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Window Tinting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conference committee delays broad window‑tint enforcement changes pending inspection‑cost report and rulemaking
Summary
Lawmakers on the S.123 conference committee discussed a 70% visible light transmittance standard for window tinting, enforcement challenges and equipment costs, and agreed to seek more information in a DMV/inspection report before finalizing statutory enforcement.
On May 29 the Senate committee of conference on S.123 held an extended discussion of proposed window‑tinting changes, including a 70% visible‑light‑transmittance (VLT) threshold and the practical and fiscal challenges of enforcement.
Members and witnesses raised concerns that current inspection practices allow a motorist with advisory denial at inspection to drive without correction, creating an enforcement loophole. Law‑enforcement testimony submitted earlier in the process indicated enforcement would require measurement tools, and committee discussion cited a range of equipment costs “anywhere between a hundred and $400” per unit.
Committee members and staff said the Vermont State Police and inspection stations currently lack uniformly deployed, calibrated devices for measuring VLT and that the calibration, procurement and training implications for police and inspection stations need further study. Several members suggested using the report the committee has requested on motor‑vehicle purchase and use tax and inspections to gather precise cost, calibration and enforcement‑protocol information.
Rather than adopt an immediate enforcement change, the committee directed staff to use the scheduled DMV/inspection report and rulemaking process to clarify how tint measurements would be made, what equipment would be needed, and how law enforcement and inspection stations would be expected to implement the standard. Members said they expect to revisit the tinting issue next year with better cost and enforcement information.
Why it matters: the committee framed the proposal as a safety measure—improving visibility for law enforcement, bicyclists and motorists—but members said they want concrete implementation plans and cost data before mandating a measurement standard in statute.
