Interpretation ID: nht94-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Denise Davis

TO: Whom It May Concern

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from John Womack to Denise Davis (Std. 205)

TEXT: To Whom it May Concern:

I was pulled over recently for the tinting in my car windows. I was told to have it checked and I would be issued a sticker for my window if the windows complied with the law.

I've been to the Window Tinting Store and was told they would not issue me a sticker because my windows were only allowing 20% sunlight through and the NEW law wants 35% sunlight through.

I'm therefore under the impression that I should have my tinting removed, which would be no problem if it were to be replaced by the proper tint at the same time as the removal took place. I was informed that I would have to cover this expense.

I paid approximately $ 450.00 to have my windows tinted seven years ago when I purchased my car. I don't have a problem with the Georgia Law. I am, however, unemployed and do not feel I should have to cover an expense for a law that came into being aft er my car was tinted unless the State of Georgia has funds set aside to replace the tinting in my car with the proper shade of tint.

If I had recently had my windows tinted in the wrong strength, I would gladly remove it because I would have been in error in the first place for having it done incorrectly and unlawfully. At the time my windows were tinted I was not breaking any law an d I don't feel I should be put to an additional expense to conform to a law put into effect at a later date.

Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.