Proposed Texas tint law

TintJunkie asked me to post this...

As of March 23, 2009, it was brought to our attention that the Texas Senate passed a bill (S B 589) that in effect would limit tinting the side windows of vehicles from a total of 25% visible light transmission to 35%. A bill has been authored by Larry Phillips in the House of Representatives H. B. 4523 that would do the same thing.



What this means to the end consumer (you and I) is that no longer will it be allowed to apply a 35% VLT film on the side windows of your vehicles. It would have to change to a 50% VLT film to meet the new requirements. The current law states that after the film is applied it can not read below 25% VLT on all side doors with a reflectance of no more than 25%, this law is fair and equitable. The problem is the !llegal use of 20% film or lower applied to side window and not the legal use of 35%.



Most of us enjoy the comfort and privacy the 35% VLT film has as well as the benefits it provides. Those benefits being the reduction of heat, glare and UV rays along with the fact that the film also makes our vehicles more efficient by having to use less A/C. If this bill is passed to law, these benefits will be greatly reduced. We are very much in favor of stricter enforcement of the current law but the change, as proposed will have a major economic impact on the State of Texas and not allow its citizens the privacy and comfort we currently have.



With crime on the rise I for one do not want the criminals to be able to see clearly if I am alone in the vehicle or that I may have something of value on back seat or floor board. Nor do I wish to give up the comfort of the already legal film applied to my vehicle. I’m sure most of you will agree that you do not wish for these thugs to know that your wife, girlfriend, daughter, or son is traveling alone to the local mall or other facility.



I am asking that each of you please forward this to as many people as you can in our great State and let them know this is going on. If you are compelled (and I hope you are) to contact your local Representative about this matter and voice opinion I will be more than happy to get your Representatives name and number for you to do so.



Thank each of you very much for your time in this matter. Together we can make a difference!



Jay Moore

Senior Sales Consultant

Enpro Distributing Inc.

Office 1800-443-6776

Cell 832-347-2691

www.enprodistributing.com

Here's the bill:


By:AAPhillips
H.B.ANo.A4523
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
1
AN ACT
2
relating to certain requirements for sunscreening devices that are
3
placed on or attached to a motor vehicle; providing a penalty.
4
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
5
SECTIONA1.AASection 547.609, Transportation Code, is amended
6
to read as follows:
7
Sec.A547.609.AAREQUIRED
LABEL
FORAASUNSCREENING
DEVICES
8
[PERMITTED].A A sunscreening device must have a label that:
9
(1)AAis legible;
10
(2)AAcontains information required by the department on
11
light transmission and luminous reflectance of the device; [and]
12
(3)AAif
the
device
is
placed
on
or
attached
to
a
13
windshield
or
a
side
or
rear
window,
states
that
the
light
14
transmission of the device is consistent with Section 547.613(b)(1)
15
or (2), as applicable; and
16
(4)AAis permanently installed between the material and
17
the surface to which the material is applied.
18
SECTIONA2.AASection 547.613, Transportation Code, is amended
19
by adding Subsection (a-1) and amending Subsections (b) and (e) to
20
read as follows:
21
(a-1)AAA
person
in
the
business
of
placing
or
attaching
22
transparent material that alters the color or reduces the light
23
transmission to the windshield or side or rear window of a motor
24
vehicle commits a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed
81R5783 JD-D
1
H.B.ANo.A4523
1
$1,000 if the person:
2
(1)AAplaces or attaches such transparent material to
3
the windshield or side or rear window of a motor vehicle; and
4
(2)AAdoes
not
install
a
label
that
complies
with
5
Section 547.609 between the transparent material and the windshield
6
or side or rear window of the vehicle, as applicable.
7
(b)AASubsection (a)A[This section] does not apply to:
8
(1)AAa windshield that has a sunscreening device that:
9
(A)AAin
combination
with
the
windshield
has
a
10
light transmission of 35 [25] percent or more;
11
(B)AAin
combination
with
the
windshield
has
a
12
luminous reflectance of 25 percent or less;
13
©AAis not red, blue, or amber; and
14
(D)AAdoes not extend downward beyond the AS-1 line
15
or more than five inches from the top of the windshield, whichever
16
is closer to the top of the windshield;
17
(2)AAa wing vent or a window other than a windshield if
18
the vent or window has a sunscreening device that in combination
19
with the vent or window has:
20
(A)AAa light transmission of 35 [25] percent or
21
more; and
22
(B)AAa luminous reflectance of 25 percent or less;
23
(3)AAa rear window, if the motor vehicle is equipped
24
with an outside mirror on each side of the vehicle that reflects to
25
the vehicle operator a view of the highway for a distance of at
26
least 200 feet from the rear;
27
(4)AAa rearview mirror;
2
H.B.ANo.A4523
1
(5)AAan
adjustable
nontransparent
sun
visor
that
is
2
mounted in front of a side window and not attached to the glass;
3
(6)AAa direction, destination, or termination sign on a
4
passenger
common
carrier
motor
vehicle,
if
the
sign
does
not
5
interfere with the vehicle operator ’s view of approaching traffic;
6
(7)AAa rear window wiper motor;
7
(8)AAa rear trunk lid handle or hinge;
8
(9)AAa luggage rack attached to the rear trunk;
9
(10)AAa side window that is to the rear of the vehicle
10
operator on a multipurpose vehicle;
11
(11)AAa window that has a United States, state, or local
12
certificate placed on or attached to it as required by law;
13
(12)AAa motor vehicle that is not registered in this
14
state;
15
(13)AAa window that complies with federal standards for
16
window materials, including a factory-tinted or a pretinted window
17
installed by the vehicle manufacturer, or a replacement window
18
meeting the specifications required by the vehicle manufacturer;
19
(14)AAa vehicle that is:
20
(A)AAused regularly to transport passengers for a
21
fee; and
22
(B)AAauthorized to operate under license or permit
23
by a local authority;
24
(15)AAa vehicle that is maintained by a law enforcement
25
agency and used for law enforcement purposes; or
26
(16)AAa commercial motor vehicle as defined by Section
27
644.001.
3
H.B.ANo.A4523
1
(e)AAIt is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)
2
[this section] that the defendant or a passenger in the vehicle at
3
the time of the violation is required for a medical reason to be
4
shielded from direct rays of the sun.
5
SECTIONA3.AA(a)AAThe change in law made by this Act applies
6
only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this
7
Act.
For purposes of this section, an offense was committed before
8
the
effective
date
of
this
Act
if
any
element
of
the
offense
9
occurred before that date.
10
(b)AAAn offense committed before the effective date of this
11
Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed,
12
and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.
13
SECTIONA4.AAThis Act takes effect September 1, 2009.

In Texas, the current law is 25%VLT, but the inspection requirement is no less than 20%VLT. AND, any vehicle pre 1988, window screening is not inspectable...but it is enforceable. This is what will happen if this is passed. The Texas state inspection restrictions will stay the same at 20%vlt, but the new law will be 35%vlt. What will/is happening, is people are getting inspection stickers with !llegal window film installed (according to the law). The law does not coincide with inspections. It would make more sense to change the inspection restrictions, rather than change a law. Same thing with front license plates. You dont have to have one to pass inspection, but Texas law requires a front plate. DUMB!!!

BTW, I am a current Texas vehicle inspector, OBDII & ASM certified.

Why would the senate want to change the existing laws??? Oh wait I know why, because our worthless government is crumbling.

So what is their solution??? Issue tons of tickets, then when people pay to have their tint removed and reapplied they get to tax it??

Sounds like the government is really a company out to make $$$ for worthless politicians not to protect anyone!

Who do we contact and how can we stop this?

Honestly i feel that the lone star state is losing what it use to be and turning into the same corrupt tax crazy politicians like the rest of the world. Im deeply saddened by this bill and already feel that 30% tint is barely enough when it comes the extreme heat in the lone star state.

Larry Phillips Send an email


Larry Phillips is the Author of the bill.


District: 62

Capitol Office: EXT E2.604
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768

Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0297

District Address: 421 North Crockett
Sherman, TX 75090

District Phone: (903) 891-7297

The way I read the bill, it's sole purpose is to impose a penalty / fine on the actuall installer, for one; not placing a VLT sticker, and two; for tinting the 2 front windows darker then legal, and three; for placing an !llegal windshield strip on the vehicle.


I am concerned that the change from 25% net to 35% net is an error and needs to be corrected.

The bill is only in the very first stage, if we act fast we may be able to stop it and /or correct it. I am going to find an online petition site.... give me a minute!

Senator John J. Carona
District 16
Legislative Experience: House Member, 1990 - 1996; Senate Member, 1996 - present

Wrote and proposed Senate Bill Number 589.
8 votes yea, 0 votes nay!
He filed the bill on january 29, 2009

Synopsis:
He basically has changed our laws so that the new VLT% is now 35% net. The luminous reflectance of 25 percent or less. How nice of him to make sure that the VLT% does NOT apply to the following:
1. a window that has a United States, state, or local certificate placed on or attached to it as required by law
2. a motor vehicle that is not registered in this state
3. a window that complies with federal standards for window materials, including a factory-tinted or a pretinted window installed by the vehicle manufacturer, or a replacement window meeting the specifications required by the vehicle manufacturer
4. a vehicle used regularly to transport passengers for a fee
5. a vehicle that is maintained by a law enforcement agency and used for law enforcement purposes
6. a commercial motor vehicle as defined by Section 644.001

If anyone installs the "!llegal" window tint they are subject to a $1000 fine, that includes not installing the label between tint and the glass!


Here are two of his addresses/numbers:
(go ahead tell him what you think and that you know how to vote)

8080 N. Central Expy.
Suite 1440, LB 44
Dallas, TX 75206
(214) 378-5751
FAX: (214) 378-5739

The Honorable John Carona
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0116
Fax: (512) 463-3135

wow this would suck I just meterd my truck(04 ford ranger edge) with carbon 45% and it meters 32%

Here is a must have list...dont let this happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





William (Bill) Callegari (Houston) District 132

Ph# 281-578-8484

Fax 512.463.7820

E-mail distict132@house.state.tx.us



Yvonne Davis (Dallas) District 111

Ph# 214-941-3895

Fax 512.463.2297

E- mail Yvonne.davis@house.state.tx.us



Jim Dunnam (Waco) District 57

Ph# 254-753-8546

Fax 512.463.5934

E-mail



Ryan Guillen (Rio Grande City) District 31

Ph# 956-716-4838

Fax 512.463.1012

E- mail



Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) District 105

Ph# 972-401-8825

Fax 512.463.0044

E-mail



Tommy Merritt (Longview) District 7

Ph# 903-238-9100 and 903-2363721

Fax 512.463.9085

E-mail tommy.merritt@house.state.tx.us



Larry Phillips (Sherman) District 62

Ph# 903-891-7297

Fax 512.463.1561

Fax #2 903.870.0066

E- mail larry.phillips@house.tx.us



Joe Pickett (El Paso) District 79

Ph# 915-5904349

Fax 512.463.6504

E-mail joe.pickett@house.state.tx.us



Todd Smith (Bedford) district 92

Ph# 817-283-3131

Fax 512.463.9529

E-mail todd.smith@house.state.tx.us



Wayne Smith (Baytown) District 128

Ph# 832-556-2002

Fax 512.463.1323

E- mail

Hopefully this lights a fire...keep reading








To: Texas Manufacturers, Distributors, and Installers



From: Lynwood Butner, Legislative Consultant

Darrell Smith, Executive Director



Date: March 23, 2009



Subject: Senate Bill 589





Senator John Carona, a Dallas County Republican, introduced Senate Bill 589 for consideration during the 2009 Legislative Session which increases the amount of visible light transmission from 25 percent to 35 percent. The legislation, as proposed, would also expand the labeling provisions to require that the label indicate the sun screening material has been installed in compliance with the state standards for tinting. The final change proposed is that “a person in the business of installing or attaching transparent material to a windshield, side, or rear window who alters the color or reduces the light transmission commits a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 if the person places such material on the windows or fails to install the required label.”



Senator Carona is Chairman of the Committee on Transportation, and Senate Bill 589 has advanced rapidly through the Committee and has passed the Senate with no dissenting votes. This legislation may be an agency bill (State Police) or the result of recent events in Dallas that may have prompted the local enforcement community to seek these changes to the current law. There is a companion bill in the House, House Bill 4523, which is sponsored by Representative Phillips. This legislation was filed on March 13, 2009, and is drafted to conform to Senate Bill 589. Representative Phillips is from Sherman and is Vice-Chairman of the House Transportation Committee.



With the additional penalty provisions, more stringent labeling requirements, and the reduction in visible light transmittance, there should be a reasonable tolerance provided to make sure that differences in meter accuracy do not result in violations of the law for our members or the consumers/customers.



The proposed legislation, if successful in the House, is scheduled to become effective September 1, 2009.



Comments on the proposed legislation should be directed to local Senate and House representatives. Contact information is available at the following site:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us.

and more....


Transportation Committee March 23, 2009

Room E2.806 Capital Extension

Austin, TX 78701



Dear Representative,



Senate Bill # 589 authored by the Honorable John Corona recently passed the Senate with no dissenting votes. There is a companion bill in the house H.B 4523 authored by the Honorable Larry Phillips.



It is quite unfortunate that neither the Window Film Industry nor the International Window Film Association (IWFA) was consulted or made aware of this piece of legislation.



This Bill further limits the tinting on side windows of automobiles from 25% visible light transmission (VLT) to 35% VLT. The current statute is fair and equitable and allows for excellent visibility inside and outside of a motor vehicle. The many benefits that the product offers include glare reduction (better visibility), reduction of solar heat (making drivers and passengers more comfortable and reducing the amount of air conditioning needed to cool the vehicle), reduction of 99.5% of ultra violet rays and more.



Passage of this Bill into law would devastate the Window Tinting Industry in the State of Texas. Consumers will not purchase tint that has a high VLT and is hardly even noticeable on an automobile window. This Bill removes two of the most effective benefits of window tint, which are minimizing glare and reducing solar heat gain. This will also have a significant economic impact on small businesses and new car dealerships. Approximately 2,200 of these types of business are involved in the selling and application of auto window tint (with the extreme vast majority doing so legally). They employ more than 8,000 people in the state and have retail sales estimated at $60,000,000. The associated tax revenue from this industry would equate to $4,950,000 annually.



Please understand that our industry cares about the safety of the public and law enforcement. However, H.B. 4523 will not accomplish this. What will accomplish this is the enforcement of the current statute. It is unfortunate that there are a few “tinters” who install products darker (25% V.L.T.) than the statute allows. These people need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is what we need to enforce. We will be more than happy to assist in this legislation so we can all be safe without crippling our industry in Texas. Let’s please not throw the baby out with the bath water.



We ask that you please not support H.B. 4523 and help us save jobs and keep the benefits that so many Texans enjoy with window tinting.

Ive got 2 more lists of contact numbers....PM me with an email address and I will send them to you. Reps in Austin, and local rep #'s.

because there are tinters everywhere down there that can't even follow a decent law. blame it on the guys doing 15-5% on fronts.

This is absolutely ridiculous law i sure hope this doesn't get passed putting 50% on a car seems almost clear and not almost does this suck but its going to kill the industry why put tint on a car if it does nothing

The sad part is the same people will still be installing 5-15% they need to have stiffer fines and enforce the laws they already have make it like a $250-500 ticket for the vehicle owner and go after shop owners that openly advertise !llegal tintng.

I have emailed every one on the list , do yall think we can really stop this ? Its really going to ruin my dreams of a business if its passed

Dude... if you have been dreaming of being the dark tint hack of the long horn state. you need to find another dream.....

We are a net 35 state... and we have tint shops

how does that saying go... oh yeah... 'Welcome to ThunderDome '

I think you misunderstood , Im not going to be installing !llegal tint thats why im opposed to the law. Why would anyone pay good money for 50% film (thats basically clear) when they can go to the next hack shop down the street and get 35% or 15 % or what ever they want because i know this law isnt going to change anything.

Exactly!! There are so many hacks in Houston. They say, "We will do it, but not issue you a reciept." I am not too focused on automotive, but I still do quite a bit. I do auto to "float" me b/t the fg jobs. This will destroy our legitimate companies in Texas. Should we say no, we wont do it, the custy will simply go to someone who will, b/c the DONT care. I have posted this information on 2 other sites. This site is the most common/popular site, and I EXPECT the members to help with this issue. We are in this together. Regardless if you live in our state, call someone. Should this issue come up in any other state, I will call to help your cause. Please, help us on this issue.

I agree whole heartedly agree with simply enforcing the existing laws and increasing the fines. I think if CA would change the legal limit on the fronts to a net 35% and strictly enforce it with a progressive fine for repeat offenses ($50-$100-$250+), it would increase much the needed revenue for the state and dramatically reduce the number of tint terrorists.

I agree the hack shops it will be business as usual.

make it the darker the tint the stiffer the fine kind of like the fines for a speeding ticket 40 miles over the limit is alot higher than 10 over If it meters 25% or less $250 10% 0r less $500.

I dont think that is the reason. If that was the case they would simply increase the penalties for the current laws.
If a high way has a speed limit of 60 but everyone does 80mph do they lower the speed limit to 30 miles an hour??? no, they simply put more cops on the highway to issue more tickets. More and more people are getting DWI's... is alcohol !llegal? NO, they have only increased penalties associated with a DWI.

Furthermore, the people who are doing 5% all around via cash only, do you think this will really stop them???
They were breaking the law before, so nothing has changed for them.

So once again, Why would the senate want to change the existing laws???

TintJunkie: we got the same fax from Enpro. Last time they tried to pass this a couple of the guys from Enpro to Austin and pulled a couple of the legislators out and showed them legally tinted car and told them that if they change the law they will have to R/R their own vehicles and I think that helped kill the bill. My brother is very political and a huge part of the Republican party here in Texas and I also Have another friend who is a judge in Plano. Both of them think that there is a pretty good chance the bill will die in the House but they are both willing to help get the word out in the party. The best thing we can do is call the representatives and let them know that their own vehicles will be !llegal if this law passes. Cause a lot of them just don't realize what they are voting for.

Simply changing the existing laws WITHOUT strict enforcement will not stop them. If strict penalties for having !llegal tint are enforced, demand for 5% all around will dry up. We do not even need to mention penalties for installing it as no customer will risk paying a $100-$300+ ticket. That $99 hack job just turned into a $300 removal.

At least they are not considering going to no film on the fronts as Illinois has done.
Does this allow for any + or - % variance ?

As far as the new bill reads there is no allowance for metering variance which the existing law does. That's why I think this bill was just thrown together with no investigation. I have met the honorable Corona who wrote the Senate bill. He has a real holier than thou attitude and like a lot of politicians these days thinks his I.Q. is higher than ours and knows whats best for us.

To much I am sending it today



I am writing you today to address HB 4523/ SB 589, after reading said bill it is my understanding that Section 547.613 of the Transportation code is being amended. I have read the entire amendment and would like to address Subsection (a) 2 (A). Where it reads (2) a wing vent or window other then the windshield if the vent or window has a sunscreening device that in combination with the vent or window (A) a light transmission of 35 [25] percent or more.

Let me introduce myself, my name is Michael Galbreath, and I have owned and operated Paladin Auto Specialties (window tinting) since 1985. I solely support myself and my family with this business. Therefore it is imperative to keep abreast of the current laws. I am deeply concerned with HB 4523/ SB 589 especially in these tough economic times.

Texas state window tinting laws have been confusing to the average consumer for many years. Primarily, because the Transportation code and the inspection laws are not the same. The Transpiration code currently states a light transmission of 25% net for all side windows on a sedan or coupe. The inspection law however states 20% net on the windows only directly to the right and left of the driver.

And now we come to the introduction of HB 4523/ SB 589. As if the laws were not already confusing to the consumer and difficult for the installer to follow, this bill changes the net from 25% to 35% visible light transmission.

In order to reach a net, one must account not only for the film but the actual glass. Therefore by adding 35% film to factory glass one can achieve within a margin a net of 28% to 25% visible light transmission.

With the passing of HB 4523 / SB 589 to reach a net of 35% the difference in the darkness of film would be minimal just 10% different, yet the cost to the small business person who employ over 8,000 people state wide would be substantial. In addition the cost of once again reeducating law enforcement, Inspection Stations, and window tinting shop owners and installer would be substantial not only to the small business owner but to the state of Texas.

Please reconsider amending Subsection (a) 2 (A) back to 25% net.

I am not clear as to the actual purpose of this amendment. If it is for enforcement reasons please understand that our industry cares about the safety of the public and law enforcement. However, HB 4523/ SB 589 will not accomplish this. What will accomplish this is the enforcement of the current statute. It is unfortunate that there are those who will install products darker than the current law allows. These people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I have included a sample of 35% film so that you might see what the darkest legal shade as the law is written now. If you have any questions or would like any information on window tinting I would be happy to sit down with you.

Thank you so much for your valuable time,

Very well said. I have faxed over a similar letter to several reps and senators. If I donor hear back from them I will commence with the phone calls. I have already called several different offices and the reps say they won't know ifvthey are going to support the bill until it gets out of committee

We just mailed out letters to all the reps with samples of 35% film that would no longer pass.

I was with the IWFA today for the Illinois law at the Capitol, and he was on the phone to tell people to stop calling...you still have your 25% It sounded like a done deal.
I told him to get off the damn phone, we have more important issues/states to deal with right now.

We are making giant strides in Illinois...today was a big day, we have the State Troopers support on a new bill we are proposing and it's a really good one.
There is hope in Illinois, but much more work is needed. IWFA stepped up in Illinois, and I can tell, they haven't forgot about Texas. They deserve a little positive press, and here it is. Lynwood Butner in particular has been working hard along with a few shop owners here in IL giving up their time and energy, and CP films with Sal and their lawyer also needs mention for their help today. Gus the Tinter was awesome today also. The big thing is we as dealers, need to abide by good laws when/if we get them. I don't think that point is stressed enough anywhere. I've been as guilty as anyone in the past. It's not good for our image. That image is a pretty big obsticle as I'm finding out.

tried to PM.....but it wouldn't work for you....

So, are you saying that there is a push for a fair tint law in Illinois finally? I have struggled for years to limit people on what I will put on their windows, but how do I say that I will let them "break" the law a little but not a bunch?? I would love to have a law that allowed for 35% on the front and even if it limited the rear to 20%....

The law will be written as followed. Remember, it's NOT a law yet, it has a long way to go, but with support from the Police Union for the first time ever, there is hope. Existing law stands if you go darker than 30% film meaning no film on fronts with darker than 30% on the back.....with 30% on the rear sect, you will be allowed 50% on the fronts.....or....35% all around. There's a mountain of provisions, along with the proposed installer fines, but it's a winner if it goes. I'll say it again, if we get this, we better not screw it up because it's a damn good bill. I have a ton of respect for the cops and the union for listening, and giving us our demonstration today, and it would absolutely destroy me to see this create problems for them if it goes through. They are good guys with a tough job, lets give em a break and keep it light.
edit...These are film laws, not net. Net will be in there, but as a sidebar so the public doesn't use the film/net confusion to go darker.

Any further questions really can't be answered yet, the actual wording is being worked on by lawyers and such tomorrow but that's about it in a nutshell. There's more, but you have to be patient, and don't assume anything will go.

Nice work guys and props to those working hard on fair laws

Hello - very good threads on why we should all work the system to support good, fair laws and oppose badly conceived laws. I don't think I can add value to what has been said regarding fighting this law - however, consider another angle WHILE you oppose the Texas Senate and House Bills. Because of the bill and the imminent backlash, this topic will get more air time in Texas - and I suspect some of you will be interviewed by news media. When you do (or if you are just in your shop doing your regular selling job to a prospective customer) remember that people sitting on their couches eating Doritos do not sympathize with us. They are going to see an interview with a police officer who was shot and than pan to you for a response. The best thing you can do is to say "while I respectfully disagree with the proposed law, we at [your company name here] will continue our longstanding tradition of SAFE, LEGAL window tinting". Use this opportunity to distance yourself from the people who are causing all this - the shops that tint illegally. While arguing against this law, assume it will pass and prepare yourself to use this opportunity to say "I don't want cops to get shot either. If the legislature believes this will keep them safer I have to agree to disagree but accept their studies and the law." Regarding your family's safety and clear windows - wow, I can certainly relate. I have dark tinted windows on my minivan and am glad it is hard to see my wife and four little ones inside. However, the Texas law still apparently allows reflective films (25%?) which offer great privacy during the day for your family.

I guess what I am trying to say is that while we fight this, we need to prepare for the possibility that it will pass and figure out how our business can create separation from others by leveraging it.

Keep you head up - we are in this together.

Along with the fact that if Texas goes up to 35% there will be tons of film that will have to be tossed, since it will be too dark for use on the fronts, and probably too short for use on BG.
So, the Texas Tint Shops would have to buy film that would be legal, where none of the current stock would be legal.
An expense that tint shops can ill afford in any economic climate.
Then, you also have the film suppliers that are stuck with all this film that no one wants, bad deal for the entire industry.

Like I said before, I'm pretty sure the bill got tossed and Texas remains as it was. Call the IWFA or your rep for confirmation, but that's the word I got.

This email was sent to me today...

Texas Dealers,

Congratulations! You're efforts have paid off in a big way.

The authors of SB 589 have convinced the legislature to keep the VLT at 25% for front windows. Please read the attached legislative alert from the office of the IWFA for more information.

Our campaign to keep Texas tinting has been very, very successful. Your support and contributions are what helped the legislature make a change.

Please contact your representative and thank them for their support of our industry.

Thanks, and congratulations again!

Team Enpro

This is the attachment that i recieved....








To: Texas Manufacturers, Distributors, and Installers



From: Lynwood Butner, Legislative Consultant





Date: March 31, 2009



Subject: Senate Bill 589





Senator John Carona, Chairman of the Committee on Transportation, introduced Senate Bill 589 for consideration during the 2009 Legislative Session which increases the amount of visible light transmission from 25 percent to 35 percent. He and Representative Larry Phillips (Vice-Chairman of the House Transportation Committee) have now convinced the legislature to retain the 25% VLT on the front windows. Senator Carona and Representative Phillips have worked well with IWFA and our legislative consultant.



They are requesting that you stop calling and e-mailing their offices at this time. Please write a letter of appreciation for all their efforts.



Address: Capitol Mailing Address:

P.O.Box 2910

Austin, Texas 78768-2910



[size="3"]

Additional information will follow as soon as we receive more information.





Thanks to everyone who helped make this possible. Like our motto states "Dont MESS with Texas!"

Just goes to show:
"One person speaking is not heard at all, but the voices of many are heard loud and clear"

Also goes to show I know what I'm talking about.

Good news, great job guys!

now we just need to work on getting front sides down to 10%vlt... haha j/k

Great job guys and props again

My State rep just called me from the House floor....The Illinois law as spoken of has passed the House with a 117-0 vote. Now on to the Senate.


edited due to bad spelling

Go get em OT

I just saw on TXCN That the Senate Bill 589, has Not been decieded yet. Whats up?????

Update:

Both Senator Corona’s and Representative Phillips offices have in fact changed the verbiage on both Senate Bill 589 and H.B. 4523. They put the VLT requirements back to a NET 25%. It looks like the Texas window film community has effectively communicated our opposition to the proposed law change. It is vital that we now contact our representatives with the same enthusiasm and thank them for taking the time to listen to us and taking our point of view into consideration.


I would personally like to thank Enpro Distributing for taking such a proactive stance in regards to this issue. Also, I would like to thank everyone who helped make this end result possible.


So..........TD, and chance I can get a "special" metal for bringing this to the attention of board members and getting the issue resolved with a desired result? Not that I single handedly did it.