New Jersey Window Tint Law 2026

Under review — the official sources we read state no figure for this. This is a gap in our research, and it says nothing about what New Jersey requires here; the state may set its rule in words rather than a percentage.

Not addressed. New Jersey permits no windshield strip for a figure to attach to — see windshield_strip_extent.

Under review — the official sources we read state no figure for this. This is a gap in our research, and it says nothing about what New Jersey requires here; the state may set its rule in words rather than a percentage.

Not addressed for an ordinary passenger vehicle. §§39:3-75, 39:3-75.1, 39:3-75.2 and 39:3-75.3 were read in full and name no AS-1 line, no inches-from-the-top band and no manufacturer's marking; §39:3-75 regulates the windshield as a whole through the undue-or-unsafe-distortion test. THE N.J.A.C. HAS NOW BEEN READ AND THE QUESTION THE PRIOR VERSION OF THIS NOTE LEFT OPEN IS ANSWERED: a windshield strip does exist in New Jersey law, but not for this vehicle. N.J.A.C. 13:20-32.7(d) permits tinted spray or plastic material on the front windshield "if such spray or material extends no lower than six inches from the top of the front windshield, or if such spray or material does not extend below the AS-1 marking on the front windshield" — and that subsection governs whether a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE may be certified at inspection, as do (c) and (e) around it. Only (a) and (b) of that section, the glazing-type and AS-marking rules, reach "all motor vehicles". Separately, N.J.A.C. 13:20-1.2(b) lets a MEDICAL EXEMPTION holder go below 70 percent above the AS-1 line. No general figure is asserted, because neither provision states one.

Under review — the official sources we read state no figure for this. This is a gap in our research, and it says nothing about what New Jersey requires here; the state may set its rule in words rather than a percentage.

New Jersey states no percentage for an ordinary passenger vehicle, and this is now a PROVED absence rather than an unread source. The statutes state none: §39:3-75.2 delegates the transmittance and reflectance figures to the Director's regulations. The N.J.A.C. was then retrieved and read on 2026-07-31, and it states none either — for this kind of vehicle. Its only tint percentages sit in N.J.A.C. 13:20 Subchapter 1, which the subchapter heading and the enabling statute both confine to vehicles holding a MEDICAL EXEMPTION certificate (§39:3-75.2(a) empowers the Director only as to materials applied "under this act", meaning L.1999, c.308), and in N.J.A.C. 13:20-32.7(d), whose tint prohibition and six-inch windshield allowance govern certification of a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. Those figures are recorded on medical_exemption and described in the commercial notes; neither set is promoted to a general limit. The test that governs the ordinary motorist is the qualitative one in §39:3-75 — whether the glazing causes undue or unsafe distortion of visibility — and a VLT figure cannot be derived from that without inventing it. AND NEW JERSEY IS NOT SILENT ABOUT THIS GLASS. §39:3-74 — retrieved 2026-07-31, the last unread provision — bars driving with "any sign, poster, sticker or other non-transparent material upon the front windshield, wings, deflectors, side shields, corner lights adjoining windshield or front side windows", excepting only a certificate or article required to be displayed by statute or by the commissioner's regulations. It is the one section that names the front side windows expressly, and it prohibits something on them. It states no percentage and none can be derived from it: "non-transparent" is a qualitative term the section does not define, and reading a VLT threshold into it would be invention. So the number stays a gap — but the gap means "New Jersey publishes no figure for this window", NOT "New Jersey does not regulate this window".

Under review — the official sources we read state no figure for this. This is a gap in our research, and it says nothing about what New Jersey requires here; the state may set its rule in words rather than a percentage.

New Jersey states no percentage for an ordinary passenger vehicle, and this is now a PROVED absence rather than an unread source. The statutes state none: §39:3-75.2 delegates the transmittance and reflectance figures to the Director's regulations. The N.J.A.C. was then retrieved and read on 2026-07-31, and it states none either — for this kind of vehicle. Its only tint percentages sit in N.J.A.C. 13:20 Subchapter 1, which the subchapter heading and the enabling statute both confine to vehicles holding a MEDICAL EXEMPTION certificate (§39:3-75.2(a) empowers the Director only as to materials applied "under this act", meaning L.1999, c.308), and in N.J.A.C. 13:20-32.7(d), whose tint prohibition and six-inch windshield allowance govern certification of a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. Those figures are recorded on medical_exemption and described in the commercial notes; neither set is promoted to a general limit. The test that governs the ordinary motorist is the qualitative one in §39:3-75 — whether the glazing causes undue or unsafe distortion of visibility — and a VLT figure cannot be derived from that without inventing it. The statutes draw no line anywhere between windows forward of and behind the driver.

Under review — the official sources we read state no figure for this. This is a gap in our research, and it says nothing about what New Jersey requires here; the state may set its rule in words rather than a percentage.

New Jersey states no percentage for an ordinary passenger vehicle, and this is now a PROVED absence rather than an unread source. The statutes state none: §39:3-75.2 delegates the transmittance and reflectance figures to the Director's regulations. The N.J.A.C. was then retrieved and read on 2026-07-31, and it states none either — for this kind of vehicle. Its only tint percentages sit in N.J.A.C. 13:20 Subchapter 1, which the subchapter heading and the enabling statute both confine to vehicles holding a MEDICAL EXEMPTION certificate (§39:3-75.2(a) empowers the Director only as to materials applied "under this act", meaning L.1999, c.308), and in N.J.A.C. 13:20-32.7(d), whose tint prohibition and six-inch windshield allowance govern certification of a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. Those figures are recorded on medical_exemption and described in the commercial notes; neither set is promoted to a general limit. The test that governs the ordinary motorist is the qualitative one in §39:3-75 — whether the glazing causes undue or unsafe distortion of visibility — and a VLT figure cannot be derived from that without inventing it. No rear-specific provision exists in any of the four sections.

Under review — the official sources we read state no figure for this. This is a gap in our research, and it says nothing about what New Jersey requires here; the state may set its rule in words rather than a percentage.

Not stated as a general figure, and the position is now established rather than merely delegated. §39:3-75.2(a) requires the Director's rules to fix "the maximum allowable percentage of total light reflectance of the materials or products", and the Director did so — N.J.A.C. 13:20-1.3 provides that visible light reflectance of sun-screening materials on the windshield and front side windows "shall not exceed eight percent". But that rule sits in the subchapter the enabling act confines to medically exempted vehicles, so it is recorded on medical_exemption and not here. For a vehicle without a certificate New Jersey publishes no reflectance ceiling, and none is asserted.

Under review — the official sources we read state no figure for this. This is a gap in our research, and it says nothing about what New Jersey requires here; the state may set its rule in words rather than a percentage.

Not stated as a figure, and the absence is doubly clear here: even the medical-scheme rule does not reach this glass. N.J.A.C. 13:20-1.3 caps reflectance only on "the windshield and/or the front side window(s)". Back side windows and the rear window appear in no N.J.A.C. reflectance provision at all. Recorded as a gap rather than NO_RESTRICTION because only Title 13 Chapter 20 was searched.

Under review — the official sources we read state no figure for this. This is a gap in our research, and it says nothing about what New Jersey requires here; the state may set its rule in words rather than a percentage.

Not stated as a general rule, though a colour rule does exist for the medical scheme. §39:3-75.2(a) requires the Director's standards to include "the color of the materials or products", and N.J.A.C. 13:20-1.4 delivers it: material applied to the windshield "shall be a clear film", and material applied to the front side windows "shall be either a clear film or a tinted film". That is Subchapter 1, i.e. the medical exemption scheme, so it is recorded on medical_exemption rather than asserted as New Jersey's general colour rule. The statute itself names no colour. §39:3-75's bar on "unduly fractured, discolored or deteriorated safety glazing material" is about degradation of the glazing, not the colour of an applied film, and is not recorded as a colour restriction.

Under review — the official sources we read state no figure for this. This is a gap in our research, and it says nothing about what New Jersey requires here; the state may set its rule in words rather than a percentage.

Not addressed in any of the four sections. New Jersey attaches no mirror condition to rear glazing — consistent with its structure, since it sets no rear figure to trade against mirrors. Whether N.J.S.A. Title 39 imposes a general mirror requirement elsewhere was not determined and is not cited here as a tint condition.