Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Window Tinting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House deletes Senate window‑tint changes; committee debates enforcement and past delayed rules
Summary
Senate Transportation members reviewed House deletion of last year's proposed window‑tint rules and discussed enforcement, a 70% visual light transmission proposal, and testimony that enforcement equipment calibration could cost more than $100.
Senate Transportation members reviewed a House amendment that removes the Senate's proposed changes to vehicle window‑tint rules, returning the statute to the "existing law" approach and reviving questions about enforcement and rulemaking from last year.
The change matters because last year's DMV bill (Act 165) had prospective amendments to the tinted‑window law with a delayed effective date intended to give DMV time to adopt rules; the House deletion removes those amendments from statute and leaves the earlier law in place. Committee members discussed a Senate proposal to set a 70 percent visual light transmission (VLT) standard and noted DMV had not completed rulemaking for the delayed provisions.
Daniel Leonard, office of legislative counsel, summarized the positions: the House removed the new tinting language and "stay[ed] with existing law," while the Senate position had been a 70% VLT standard. Committee members recalled that the amendments in last year's bill were to take effect July 1, 2025, and that DMV had not enacted associated rules because the Senate language had inserted a delayed effective date.
Members also discussed enforcement tools and testimony the committee received about measurement devices. Law‑enforcement and inspection‑mechanic testimony, committee members said, indicated a device that meets enforcement standards and could withstand a challenge might cost more than $100 to calibrate and maintain — a cost that could affect how strictly agencies enforce a VLT standard.
No formal action was taken; senators said they would discuss how to proceed in conference or future drafting. Several members noted confusion about whether deleting this year's bill would restore last year's statutory changes, and Leonard clarified that if the current bill were killed, the result would be a return to the prior statutory state depending on other moves in conference.
The committee left the matter open for further discussion and signaled interest in reconciling differences in conference committee work.
