Disclaimer: Notices of Proposal are posted on this site by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Commission as a courtesy to inform the public about pending rules. This version is not
the official text of the proposal and may differ from the official published text. The official
text of the proposal is published in the New Jersey Register issue for the date indicated.
Should there be any discrepancies between this website and the official version of the
proposal, the official version will govern.
MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
Driver Management Bureau
Proposed Readoption with Amendments: N.J.A.C. 13:19 –1 through 9 and
Proposed Amendments: N.J.A.C. 13:19-10.1, 12.1, 12.2, 12.11, 12.12, 13.1
Authorized By: Motor Vehicle Commission, ___________________________
Stephen S. Scaturro, Vice Chair
Authority: N.J.S.A. 17:29A-35, 39:2-3, 39:3-10, 39:3-10.4 et seq., 39:3-11, 39:3-
15, 39:3-15.1, 39:3-16, 39:4-50, 39:4-50.16 et seq., 39:5-30, 39:5D-4, 39:5F-1
et seq., 52:14B-1 et seq. and Pub. L. 99-570.
Calendar Reference: See Summary below for explanation of exception to
Proposal Number: PRN 2009 -
Submit written comments by ______, 20__ to:
Steven E. Robertson, Director
Legal and Regulatory Affairs
Motor Vehicle Commission
225 East State Street
PO Box 162
Trenton, NJ 08666-0162
The agency proposal follows:
The public comment period for this proposal will be 60 days, since the
proposal is not listed in the agency rulemaking calendar. This notice of proposal
is exempted from the rulemaking calendar requirement pursuant to N.J.A.C.
The Motor Vehicle Commission (Commission) proposes to readopt with
amendments the provisions of N.J.A.C. 13:19-1 to 9, inclusive, and N.J.A.C.
13:19-11 concerning driver control service in accordance with the “sunset” and
other provisions of Executive Order No. 66 (1978) and the Administrative
Procedure Act at N.J.S.A. 52:14B-5.1. These rules expire on January 5, 2010.
On June 29, 1994, the Governor directed that the five-year sunset provision of
Executive Order No. 66 (1978) is waived for subchapters 10, Point System and
Driving During Suspension; 12, Motor Vehicle Insurance Surcharge; and 13,
Motor Vehicle Insurance Surcharge: Supplemental Surcharges, of N.J.A.C.
13:19 until such time as the bonds, which funded a portion of the Market
Transition Facility deficit have been retired. (See 26 N.J.R. 2905 (a)).
Surcharges collected by the Commission are transferred to the Market Transition
Facility Revenue Fund for the purpose of discharging the bonds, notes and
obligations of the Market Transition Facility.
The rules contained in N.J.A.C. 13:19 implement various provisions of the
Motor Vehicle and Traffic Laws, N.J.S.A. 39:1-1 et seq., pertaining to driver
qualification, administrative hearing procedures, and driver license denial and
suspension. The Commission has reviewed N.J.A.C. 13:19-1 through 13:19-9,
inclusive, and N.J.A.C. 13:19-11 in accordance with Executive Order No. 66
(1978) and the Administrative Procedure Act (N.J.S.A. 52:14B-5.1) and has
determined that said rules are “necessary, adequate, reasonable, efficient,
understandable and responsive to the purpose for which they were promulgated,”
but has also determined to propose amendments to various rules contained in
said subchapters as part of this proposal. Many of the rules contained in
N.J.A.C. 13:19 implement the public policy of this State as set forth in the Motor
Vehicles and Traffic Law; namely, to foster highway safety by limiting licensure to
those who are physically qualified to safely operate motor vehicles and those
who demonstrate an ability to comply with the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Law.
A summary of each subchapter and important sections in N.J.A.C. 13:19
Subchapter 1 pertains to administrative hearings.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.1 provides that the provisions of the subchapter shall
apply to administrative hearings in cases involving revocation, suspension or
refusal to renew licenses, including cases involving imposition of insurance
surcharges by the Commission pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:29A-35. However, the
provisions of N.J.A.C. 13:19-1 do not apply to hearings in fatal accident cases in
which the Commission has initiated administrative suspension action against a
licensee pursuant to subsection b, c, or e of N.J.S.A. 39:5-30; requests for
hearings and the scheduling and conduct of same in such cases are governed by
the provisions of subsection b or e of N.J.S.A. 39:5-30.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.2 affords a licensee or his or her attorney a period of 25
days from the date of notice of proposed Commission action against such
licensee in which to make a written hearing request to the Commission. N.J.A.C.
13:19-1.2 also provides that requests for a hearing must specify all disputed
material facts that the licensee or his or her attorney intends to raise at such
hearing. Requests for a hearing must also set forth all legal issues that the
licensee or his or her attorney intends to raise, and must present all arguments
on those issues that the licensee wishes the Commission to consider. N.J.A.C.
13:19-1.2 further provides that when a hearing request fails to set forth any
disputed material fact and fails to set forth any legal issue or any argument on an
issue, the request for a hearing shall be denied. The Commission shall notify the
licensee of this denial and the grounds thereof, and shall notify the licensee that
the proposed action shall become effective on such date as the Commission
shall specify. The rule further provides that such notice of denial of a hearing
request shall be deemed to constitute the final decision of the Commission in
such matter. N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.2 also provides that when a hearing request sets
forth disputed material facts that the licensee or his or her attorney intends to
raise at such hearing, the Chief Administrator shall require the licensee to attend
a prehearing conference conducted by designated Commission employees.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.2 further provides that when there are no disputed material
facts and when a request for a hearing sets forth legal issues and presents
arguments on those issues, the Chief Administrator may either consider those
legal issues and arguments on the basis of the written record and render a
written determination, which shall constitute the final agency decision in the
matter; or may require the licensee to attend a prehearing conference conducted
by designated employees of the Commission; or may transmit the matter directly
to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1. The
proposal amends N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.2 (b) by changing the name of the unit that
receives hearing requests from the “Driver Management Bureau” to the
“Scheduling Unit” and changing the corresponding post office box number and
N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.3 provides that the Commission shall notify the licensee
of the date, time and place of a prehearing conference scheduled pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.4 is reserved.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.5 governs adjournments and failure to appear. The
proposal amends N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.5(a) by changing the name of the unit that
receives adjournment requests from the “Driver Management Bureau” to the
“Scheduling Unit” and changing the corresponding post office box number and
zip code. It also deletes the line below the city, state, and zip code that read:
“Attention: Prehearing Conference Scheduling Unit."
N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.6 concerns representation by counsel.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.7 provides for the conduct of prehearing conferences by
driver improvement analysts.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.8 indicates that the purpose of the prehearing
conference is to clarify disputed material facts and legal issues raised in the
hearing request; to review the evidence upon which the licensee bases his or her
claim; to ascertain the discovery needs of the licensee; to supply the licensee
with any discovery to which the licensee may be entitled under the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules; and to attempt to resolve the administrative
action to be taken. N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.8 also provides that a Commission driver
improvement analyst shall conduct a prehearing conference with a licensee who
has been scheduled for such a conference pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.8 further provides that when the Commission and a licensee
cannot reach a resolution of the proposed administrative action at the prehearing
conference, the matter shall be transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law for
a hearing pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1, unless there are no disputed material facts
and no legal issues or argument on those issues raised at the conference. The
rule further provides that in the event there is no resolution of the proposed
administrative action at the prehearing conference and there are no disputed
material facts and no legal issues or argument on those issues raised at the
conference, the Commission shall notify the licensee that the matter shall not be
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law and the grounds thereof and shall
notify the licensee that the proposed action shall become effective on such date
as the Commission shall specify. Such notice shall constitute the final agency
decision in the matter.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.9 through 1.12 are reserved.
N.J.A.C.13:19-1.13(a) provides that the Commission shall not take
administrative action against a person unless it has first afforded the person an
opportunity to be heard in conformity with N.J.A.C. 13:19-1, except as set forth in
subsections (b), (c) and (d) of the rule. Subsection (b) of the rule provides that
when the administrative action proposed by the Commission against any person
is one wherein the Commission has authority to act without first providing an
opportunity to be heard, the Commission shall promptly afford the person an
opportunity to be heard in conformity with N.J.A.C. 13:19-1. Subsection (c) of the
rule provides that a hearing shall not be provided when the action taken by the
Commission is required by any law that prescribes a suspension or revocation of
a license or a privilege and that requires no exercise of discretion on the part of
the Commission. A hearing shall not be provided when a license or privilege is
suspended or revoked by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Subsection
(d) of the rule provides that when a license is restored with the understanding
that any subsequent moving violation will be cause for a summary suspension,
the issue of any hearing provided with respect to a proposed suspension for such
subsequent moving violation will be limited to whether or not the licensee has
been convicted of a subsequent moving violation and ascertaining whether the
licensee received notice that the license had been restored with that
Subchapter 2 was repealed effective June 20, 1983. That subchapter
contained rules concerning probationary driver licenses.
Subchapter 3 was repealed effective August 18, 1989. That subchapter
contained rules concerning accident claims filed with the Unsatisfied Claim and
Judgment Fund Board, which was transferred from the former Division of Motor
Vehicles to the then Department of Insurance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6-64a.
Subchapter 4 pertains to cardiovascular disorders.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-4.1 provides for the appointment of a Cardiovascular
Committee (Committee) to advise the Commission concerning the physical
qualifications of drivers.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-4.2 provides that the Chief Administrator, in determining
the driver qualification of a person affected by a cardiovascular disorder, may
require the person to provide a statement of his or her medical history and a
statement from his or her physician pertaining to diagnosis, treatment and
N.J.A.C. 13:19-4.3 indicates that the Chief Administrator may refer cases
to the Committee for review and recommendation relating to driver qualification.
If the Committee deems it advisable, the applicant or licensed driver may be
required to be examined by an internal medicine specialist or a cardiologist.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-4.4 indicates that the Committee members will report their
findings and recommendations to the Chief Administrator who will determine
whether or not to issue a driver license or whether or not to allow an existing
licensee to retain his or her driving privilege(s). The proposed amendment to the
rule conforms this section to the rest of the subchapter and to existing
Commission practice by acknowledging that the Committee is not only called
upon to issue findings and recommendations for new drivers, it also is called
upon to issue findings and recommendations as to whether or not existing drivers
should be permitted to retain their basic and/or commercial and/or passenger
N.J.A.C. 13:19-4.5 provides that cases may also be referred to the
Committee upon application for restoration of driving privileges.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-4.7 provides that restoration of driving privileges may be
conditioned upon the driver’s agreement to submit interval medical reports.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-4.8 provides that the Chief Administrator may require a
driver to be reexamined as to his or her ability to safely operate motor vehicles
prior to the restoration of driving privileges.
Subchapter 5 pertains to convulsive seizures.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-5.1 requires a person who has been subject to recurrent
convulsive seizures, recurrent periods of impaired consciousness or impairment
or loss of motor coordination to establish that he or she has been free of such
condition for one year as a prerequisite to the issuance of a learner’s permit,
driver’s license, driver’s license renewal or the retention of the driver’s license
that has been issued to said person.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-5.2 provides that the Chief Administrator, after notice and
hearing, may suspend the driving privilege of, or deny the issuance of a learner’s
permit or driver’s license to a person who is affected by a seizure disorder.
When the Chief Administrator determines it to be in the public interest, a
suspension may be imposed pending administrative hearing.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-5.3 provides that the Chief Administrator, in determining
the driver qualification of a person affected by a seizure disorder, may require the
person to provide a statement of his or her medical history, a statement from the
treating physician pertaining to diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, and any
other information deemed necessary.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-5.4 provides that the Chief Administrator shall appoint a
Neurological Disorder Committee upon consultation with and advice of the
Medical Society of the State of New Jersey.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-5.5 provides that the Chief Administrator may refer
individual cases to the Neurological Disorder Committee for review and
recommendation relating to driver qualification.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-5.6 requires each member of the Neurological Disorder
Committee to separately report the member’s findings and recommendations to
the Chief Administrator.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-5.7 provides that the Chief Administrator upon consultation
with members of the Neurological Disorder Committee, may grant a learner’s
permit or initial driver’s license or may permit a person to retain his or her driver’s
license although such person may have suffered a seizure, period of impaired
consciousness, or impairment or loss of motor coordination within a one year
period when the specific characteristics of a person’s disorder do not adversely
impact on the person’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-5.8 provides that a determination to issue or restore driving
privileges is predicated on the submission of a current statement of medical
history, a current physician’s statement, and evidence that the seizure-free
requirement has been satisfied or that waiver thereof has been granted by the
Chief Administrator upon consultation with members of the Neurological Disorder
N.J.A.C. 13:19-5.9 indicates that a determination to issue or restore
driving privileges is conditioned upon the person’s agreement to submit interval
reports containing the medical history and physician’s statement. Interval reports
must be submitted every six months for a period of two years from the date of
license issuance or restoration. Thereafter, yearly reports must be submitted.
The Chief Administrator, in his or her discretion, may waive or alter the interval
N.J.A.C. 13:19-5.10 provides that a driver reexamination may be required
as a condition of the issuance, retention, or restoration of driving privileges.
Subchapter 6, Installation and Use of Ignition Interlock Devices,
establishes procedures and requirements for the certification of breath alcohol
ignition interlock devices.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.1 articulates the purpose and scope of the subchapter.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.2 defines the words and terms used in the subchapter.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.3 adopts and incorporates by reference the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Model Specifications for breath
alcohol ignition interlock devices (BAIIDs).
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.4 sets forth standards governing the use and installation
of BAIIDs for the purpose of satisfying DWI sentencing requirements. The rule
sets forth the sentenced offender’s obligation to have a BAIID installed in every
vehicle he or she owns, leases, or regularly operates by a service center
designated by the Chief Administrator, and to have the BAIID regularly serviced
at a designated service center. The rule also sets forth the general obligation
that no one remove a BAIID until the offender’s sentence is completed.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.5 establishes the specifications for BAIIDs used for
satisfaction of DWI sentencing requirements. BAIIDs are required to meet the
NHTSA Model Specifications, to have an alcohol setpoint of 0.05 percent breath
alcohol concentration (BrAC), to have fixed thereto a label warning against
tampering liability, and to have a maximum required service interval of 67 days.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.6 establishes the application procedure for the Chief
Administrator’s certification of BAIIDs. The proposal amends subsection (b)6 of
the rule by correcting the regulatory citation contained in that section. The
citation is currently listed as N.J.A.C. 16:19-6.14; it should be 13:19-6.14.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.7 provides that the Chief Administrator shall certify a
BAIID for use in meeting DWI sentencing requirements provided the BAIID meets
the requirements of N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.5, the manufacturer has filed a completed
application containing the certifications and information required in N.J.A.C.
13:19-6.6, and the manufacturer’s service center complies with the requirements
of N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.11. The Chief Administrator is empowered to deny
certification to a BAIID model if certification or approval has been denied,
suspended, or revoked in another state. The Chief Administrator provides written
notice of the grant or denial of certification, and in case of denial, the reason
therefor. After BAIID certification, manufacturers are required to file a surety
bond in the amount of $10,000 with the Commission.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.8 requires manufacturers to obtain liability insurance in
specified amounts and to file proof thereof with the Commission.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.9 requires manufacturers of certified BAIIDs to provide
annually to the Chief Administrator reports concerning the consistency in the
manufacture of the BAIID and complaints received and corrective action taken
with respect to the BAIID. In addition, manufacturers are required to notify the
Commission within 30 days of their receipt of notice of another state’s
suspension, revocation, or denial of certification of the model certified by the
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.10 provides the bases for the Chief Administrator’s
authority to revoke BAIID certification and establishes the effective date of the
revocation. In addition, the rule requires BAIIDs installed under the subchapter
to be removed from the program participants’ vehicles at the manufacturer’s
expense when the Chief Administrator has revoked certification for the BAIID.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.11 establishes requirements for BAIID service centers
that address such facilities’ physical layout, operation, and staffing. The
requirements also address the matters of installation security, tampering
memorialization, access to BAIID installation and maintenance without regard to
economic status, training, and responsible staffing.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.12 requires BAIID manufacturers to register with the
Commission in each year subsequent to the year in which the model was
certified by the Chief Administrator a certified model’s continued compliance with
the requirements of the subchapter.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.13 is reserved.
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.14 provides that indigent persons are able to participant
in the program at half the regular installation and leasing charges, and requires
persons applying for the reduced rates to show proof of eligibility at the time of
N.J.A.C. 13:19-6.15 provides information as to how to obtain lists of
certified BAIIDs and service center locations.
Subchapter 7, Reciprocity Agreement between Connecticut and New
Jersey, contains the reciprocity agreement between the two states concerning
motor vehicle violations, bail forfeitures and failures to appear by drivers licensed
in the respective states.
Subchapter 8, Reciprocity Agreement between Province of Alberta and
State of New Jersey, contains the reciprocity agreement concerning motor
vehicles registered in the respective jurisdictions.
Subchapter 9, Designation of State Official to Be Notified by Drivers of
Commercial Motor Vehicles Concerning Out-of-State Motor Vehicle Convictions,
designates the Motor Vehicle Commission’s Director, Compliance and Safety, as
the State official to be notified by drivers of commercial motor vehicles of out-of-
State motor vehicle convictions pursuant to the Federal Commercial Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, and also indicates the address to which such
notification is to be sent. The proposal updates the title of the official designee; it
formerly was “Director, Driver Management/Regulatory Affairs” and it is now
“Director, Compliance and Safety.”
Subchapter 10, Point System and Driving During Suspension, provides a
framework for administrative action against repetitive violators of the Motor
Vehicles and Traffic Law. It lists the violations for which points are assessed and
the number of points assessed for each of those violations. The subchapter also
sets the periods of suspension for points accumulation. The proposal amends
N.J.A.C. 13:19-10.1 by clarifying when points are assessed for violations of
N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.2, driving in an unsafe manner, in accordance with Hina K Patel
v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, Supreme Court of New Jersey, A-86
September Term 2008, 2009 N.J. LEXIS 1008. According to the Court, no points
shall be assessed for the first two violations of N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.2 but points shall
be assessed for third and subsequent violations that occur within five years of the
prior N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.2 violation. This proposed amendment will not change the
way the MVC administers the assessment of points for N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.2 since
its computer system’s programming already conforms to the Supreme Court’s
decision; it will just clarify the language in the regulation. The sunset provision of
Executive Order No. 66 (1978) has been waived for this subchapter.
Subchapter 11, Suspension for Out-of-State Convictions; Administrative
Determinations and Bail Forfeitures for Driving While Under the Influence of
Intoxicating Liquor or Drugs; Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test, provides for the
uniform application of New Jersey law in matters relating to out-of-State
convictions for alcohol-related violations. New Jersey licensed drivers are
subject to the terms of suspension and alcohol education or rehabilitation
program requirements specified at N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 and 39:4-50a for alcoholrelated
violations incurred out-of-State.
Subchapter 12, Motor Vehicle Insurance Surcharge (title of subchapter
amended by this proposal to be Motor Vehicle Violations Surcharge System),
specifies the Commission’s hearing, suspension and installment payment
procedures to implement the Motor Vehicle Violations Surcharge System as
provided for in N.J.S.A. 17:29A-35. The sunset provision of Executive Order No.
66 (1978) has been waived for this subchapter.
The proposal amends the term “Insurance Surcharge Bill” to “Motor
Vehicle Violations Surcharge System Bill” in the title of N.J.A.C. 13:19-12.1 and
the text in N.J.A.C. 13:19-12.1(b) to be consistent with terminology in P.L. 2007,
c. 282 that implemented Recommendation 8 (“Rename the Insurance Surcharge
Program to reflect its current purpose as a driver assessment penalty.”) of the
Motor Vehicles Affordability and Fairness Task Force Final Report, February
2006, prepared by the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center of the Edward J.
Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy of Rutgers, the State University of
New Jersey and the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.
In N.J.A.C. 13:19-12.2, the proposal amends the address to which hearing
requests shall be addressed to reflect the program’s name change, pursuant to
P.L. 2007, c. 282. “Automobile Insurance Surcharge and Collections” is replaced
by “Motor Vehicle Violations Surcharge System.”
The proposal amends N.J.A.C. 13:19-12.11 to conform the section to the
changes made pursuant to P.L. 2007, c. 282 that authorize the MVC to allow, for
good cause, surcharge payments to be made in up to thirty-six monthly
installments. These changes to the law were prompted by a Motor Vehicles
Affordability and Fairness Task Force recommendation.
The proposal also amends N.J.A.C. 13:19-12.12 to reflect the fact that the
New Jersey Merit Rating Plan is now the Motor Vehicle Violations Surcharge
System as a result of the changes made by P.L 2007, c. 282.
Subchapter 13, Motor Vehicle Insurance Surcharge (title of this
subchapter amended by this proposal to be Motor Vehicle Violations Surcharge
System); Supplemental Surcharges, implements the Motor Vehicle Violations
Surcharge System (N.J.S.A. 17:29A-35), which provides for the imposition of
motor vehicle insurance surcharges. The subchapter establishes supplemental
surcharges for certain motor vehicle convictions and administrative suspensions.
The supplemental surcharges are levied for serious motor vehicle violations such
as driving while suspended and driving without liability insurance. The sunset
provision of Executive Order No. 66 (1978) has been waived for this subchapter.
References to “Plan” surcharges in N.J.A.C. 13:19-13.1(a) and 13:19-13.2 (a) are
proposed for change to “System” surcharges to reflect the name change enacted
by P.L. 2007, c. 282.
The readoption of N.J.A.C. 13:19 will have a beneficial social impact in
that the rules contained therein promote highway safety by implementing various
provisions of the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Law pertaining to driver qualification,
driver rehabilitation and driver disqualification for violation of the motor vehicle
laws. The readoption of N.J.A.C. 13:19 also promotes the social welfare in that it
sets forth administrative hearing procedures that comport with due process
requirements of notice and hearing before final administrative action is taken by
the Commission in license suspension and insurance surcharge matters.
Persons may be disqualified from licensure because their medical
condition (that is, cardiovascular or convulsive seizure disorder) creates an
unreasonable risk to the safety of other motorists. Persons who have repeatedly
violated the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Law or have incurred alcohol-related
violations may have their driving privileges suspended because they also present
a disproportionate risk to the safety of other motorists. Imposition of driving
privilege suspensions fosters highway safety in that said suspensions are
intended to deter further violations upon license restoration. Driver improvement
programs for motor vehicle violators and alcohol education or rehabilitation
program requirements for persons committing alcohol-related violations also
foster highway safety in that said programs are designed and intended to modify
driver behavior. Installation of ignition interlock devices on motor vehicles
owned, leased or regularly operated by DWI offenders as a condition of driver
license restoration promotes highway safety by preventing motor vehicles from
being driven by persons whose breath alcohol concentrations effectively prohibit
the vehicles’ engines from being started.
Allowing qualified drivers to pay their surcharges in up to thirty-six monthly
installments conforms the regulations to recent changes in the law that make it
less burdensome to those drivers who cannot afford large monthly payments,
decreases the likelihood of drivers having their driving privileges suspended
because they cannot afford to make their surcharge payments, and makes it
more likely that the Motor Vehicle Violations Surcharge System will receive its
payments in a timely fashion because drivers are less likely to default on their
payments if they have more affordable monthly payment amounts.
The economic impact on the State in funding the Motor Vehicle
Commission’s Driver Control Services Division is partially offset by the driver
improvement program fees that are collected by the Commission pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 39:5-30.4 and N.J.A.C. 13:19-10.3(c). There is an adverse economic
impact on drivers who commit motor vehicle violations and who as a result incur
driver improvement program fees; or who as a result incur a driver license
suspension necessitating a payment of a license restoration fee or alcohol
program fee as a prerequisite to license restoration; or who as a result incur an
insurance surcharge; or who as a result are required to install an ignition interlock
device as a condition of license restoration. There is an adverse economic
impact on drivers who incur serious motor vehicle violations in that they are
subject to the imposition of insurance surcharges as provided by law. Following
a recommendation by the Motor Vehicles Affordability and Fairness Task Force,
P.L. 2007, c. 282 was passed. P.L. 2007, c. 282 has somewhat tempered the
adverse economic impact on individuals that emanates from insurance
surcharges by increasing the allowable amount of monthly installment payments
from 12 to up to 36. The proposed amendments to N.J.A.C. 13:19-12.11 will
conform the rule to the law and current MVC practice.
There is an economic impact on the State in funding the Commission’s
Automobile Insurance Surcharge and Collection Unit which is charged with the
administration of the supplemental surcharge rules. Prior to September 1, 1996,
the former Division of Motor Vehicles’ administrative costs incurred in collecting
insurance surcharges were partially offset in that the Division was permitted by
N.J.S.A. 17:29A-35 to retain 10 percent of the monies collected, or the actual
cost of administering the collection of surcharges, whichever was less. Also,
prior to September 1, 1996, the former Division of Motor Vehicles was permitted
by N.J.S.A. 17:29A-35 to retain five percent of the monies collected, or the actual
cost of administering the insurance cancellation notification system established
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:33B-41, whichever was less. Commencing September
1, 1996, all surcharges collected by the former Division, including the
supplemental surcharges collected pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:19-13, have been
remitted to the Division of Motor Vehicles’ Surcharge Fund for transfer to the
Market Transition Facility Revenue Fund for the purpose of discharging the
bonds, notes and obligations of the Market Transition Facility. See N.J.S.A.
17:29A-35 and 34:1B-21.1 et seq. The administrative costs incurred by the
Commission’s Automobile Insurance Surcharge and Collection Unit is now
funded through the State General Fund.
Federal Standards Statement
In compliance with Executive Order No. 27 (1994), Requirement for
Statement Concerning Federal Standards in State Agency Rulemaking, notice is
hereby given that the rules proposed for readoption herein pertaining to the
installation of an ignition interlock device incorporate by reference the NHTSA
Model Specifications; thereby meeting but not exceeding the Federal
requirements set forth in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21), Pub. L.105-178, 111 Stat. 107 et seq.
A Federal standards analysis is not required for the remainder of the rules
proposed for readoption with amendments herein because the subject matter of
those rules is governed by State law and is not subject to any Federal
requirements or standards.
The Division does not anticipate that any jobs will be generated or lost as
a result of the rules proposed for readoption with amendments.
Agriculture Industry Impact
The rules proposed for readoption with amendments will have no impact
on the agriculture industry in the State.
Regulatory Flexibility Statement
The rules proposed for readoption impose reporting, recordkeeping and
compliance requirements on ignition interlock device manufacturers, some of
which may be small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-16 et seq.
Manufacturers that seek to participate in the certified ignition interlock
device program are required to comply with the application and post-certification
reporting, recordkeeping and compliance requirements imposed by N.J.A.C.
13:19-6. To obtain certification, the rules require manufacturers to ensure that
the device proposed for certification complies with the NHTSA model
specifications, has the designated alcohol setpoint, bears the prescribed warning
label, has a required service interval of no more than 67 days, and does not
impede the safe operation of the vehicle in which it is installed. To ensure
compliance with NHTSA model specifications, the rules require manufacturers to
submit with their applications the training and operational instructions, technical
specifications and proof of either laboratory testing or another state’s certification
of the device as meeting the NHTSA Model Specifications. The rules require that
manufacturers provide indigent persons with device installation and leasing at
half the regular price.
The rules also require a manufacturer to carry liability insurance in the
specified amount, and to provide the Commission with a certificate of insurance
upon application. Upon the Chief Administrator’s certification of a manufacturer’s
device, the manufacturer is required to post a bond in a specified amount.
The rules also require a manufacturer to submit with its application a list of
states that have approved, revoked, suspended, and denied certification of the
device in a program that requires compliance with the NHTSA Model
Specifications, and in the case of a revocation, suspension, or denial, the
reasons and contact information of the state official responsible therefore.
Manufacturers have a continuing obligation upon certification to notify the
Commission in case of a subsequent revocation, suspension, or denial of
certification or approval of a device certified by the Chief Administrator.
The rules also require manufacturers to maintain a network of device
service centers. The manufacturer must submit with its application for
certification a list of the service centers in the network, information relating to the
nature of the proprietorship thereof, and a list of the employees of the centers.
The employees of service centers have to be free from records of certain criminal
offenses that could have the propensity to impair the integrity of, and public
confidence in the program. Manufacturers must provide employees with
appropriate training, and submit the training documentation with their
The rules require the configuration of service centers to provide a secure
service area, a secure record storage area, a waiting area for customers, and a
training area in which to provide required hands-on training to device users.
Service centers must display certain signage and must be equipped with
appropriate tools, testing equipment, and service manuals. Service centers must
maintain in a secure area all material and supplies relating to BAIID servicing.
Service centers must keep as confidential program participants’ personal and
Service centers are required to operate during normal business hours, to
maintain a 24-hour emergency response telephone number, and to provide
prompt responses to emergency service requests. Service centers are required
to complete installations within seven days of a request, and to provide device
users in the DWI sentencing program with a certificate of installation.
Service centers are required to provide device users in the sentencing
program with hands-on training, care and maintenance instructions, emergency
procedures, and the emergency response telephone number. In conducting
required service, service centers are required to check for proper device
functioning and operation and for evidence of tampering, and to document in
written and photographic form indicia of tampering and circumvention efforts and
Manufacturers are required to report to the Commission annually that the
manufacture of the device has not changed, and to provide a summary of
reported problems with the device, categorized by the nature of the complaint.
Manufacturers and their service centers are required to maintain service records
for each offender for a specified time period after device removal.
Failure of manufacturers to remain in compliance with the application and
post-certification requirements, or inaccurate misrepresentation of the device,
provide grounds for the Chief Administrator’s decertification of the device.
Manufacturers whose devices the Chief Administrator decertifies are required to
pay for the removal of devices installed to satisfy sentencing program
requirements, and for the cost of installation of certified devices.
The rules proposed for readoption do not require small businesses to
engage additional professional services for compliance therewith. The records
are of a kind that are maintained in the ordinary course of business. Therefore,
the rules do not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping burdens on small
businesses nor do they necessitate initial capital and annual expenditures for
reporting or recordkeeping compliance by small businesses.
The Commission rules are intended to ensure that persons sentenced to
use the ignition interlock device have a reliable resource to aid them in complying
with their sentences, that indigent persons are not precluded by cost from
participating in the program, and that the devices used are in compliance with the
NHTSA Model Specifications and are consistent in their design and operability.
The DWI sentencing program has as its goal the deterrence of DWI recidivism,
thereby promoting the health and safety of the public. The Commission has
determined that the uniform application of rules to all manufacturers, regardless
of business size, is necessary to ensure that the conduct of manufacturers meets
these reliability, safety, and fairness goals. Therefore, the Commission has
provided no distinction in the rules based on business size.
The remainder of the rules proposed for readoption with amendments
herein have been reviewed with regard to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, N.J.S.A.
52:14B-16 et seq. Those rules impose no recordkeeping or compliance
requirements on small businesses; therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required. Those rules regulate individual driver licensees.
Smart Growth Impact
It is not anticipated that the rules proposed for readoption with
amendments will have any impact on the achievement of smart growth and the
implementation of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan within the
meaning of Executive Order No. 4 (2002).
Housing Affordability Impact
Housing affordability will not be impacted in any significant way by this
proposed readoption with amendments. The proposed readoption is concerned
with driver management and control including the administrative hearing process
for taking action against errant drivers. It does not impose any requirements on
housing units or affect their affordability.
Smart Growth Development Impact
The proposed readoption with amendments should not have a significant
impact on smart growth development because they do not impose any
requirements on housing units, affordable housing or new construction within
Planning Areas 1 or 2 or within designated centers under the State Development
and Redevelopment Plan.
Full text of the proposed readoption may be found in the New Jersey
Administrative Code at N.J.A.C. 13:19-1 through 9 and 11.
Full text of the proposed amendments follows (additions indicated in
boldface thus; deletions indicated in brackets [thus]):
CHAPTER 19. [DRIVER MANAGEMENT BUREAU] COMPLIANCE AND
SUBCHAPTER 1. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
13:19-1.2 Requests for hearings; disposition of hearing requests
(a) (No change.)
(b) Requests for a hearing shall, except as specified in (c) below and in
N.J.A.C. 13:19-12.2(b), be sent to the following address:
Motor Vehicle Commission
[Driver Management Bureau] Scheduling Unit
PO Box  166
Trenton, New Jersey 08666- 0166
(c) – (g) (No change.)
13:19-1.5 Adjournments; failure to appear
(a) No prehearing conference shall be adjourned from the scheduled
prehearing conference date except for good cause and upon order of the Chief
Administrator or an employee designated by the Chief Administrator. All
requests for adjournment must be made in writing, with the reasons specified
therein, not later than seven days before the date scheduled for the prehearing
conference. All requests shall be sent to the following address:
Motor Vehicle Commission
[Driver Management Bureau] Scheduling Unit
PO Box  166
Trenton, New Jersey 08666- 0166
[Attention: Prehearing Conference Scheduling
(b) (No change.)
(c) (No change.)
(d) (No change.).
SUBCHAPTER 4. CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS
13:19-4.4 Findings report
The members of the Cardiovascular Committee will report their findings
and recommendations to the Chief Administrator and the Chief Administrator will
determine whether or not a person may be issued a driver license. If a person
has an existing driver license, the Chief Administrator will determine
whether or not the person can retain his or her driving privilege.
SUBCHAPTER 6. INSTALLATION AND USE OF IGNITION INTERLOCK
13:19-6.6 Application for certification of BAIID
(a) (No change.)
(b) The manufacturer shall certify the following as to the BAIID for which
the manufacturer seeks certification:
1. (No change;)
2. (No change;)
3. (No change;)
4. (No change;)
5. (No change;)
6. The manufacturer shall provide BAIIDs to indigents in accordance
with N.J.A.C.  13:19-6.14.
(c) (No change.)
SUBCHAPTER 9. DESIGNATION OF STATE OFFICIAL TO BE NOTIFIED BY
DRIVERS OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES
CONCERNING OUT-OF-STATE MOTOR VEHICLE
13:19-9.1 Designation of State official; notification
(a) The Director, [Driver Management/Regulatory Affairs] Compliance
and Safety, is designated as the State official to be notified, pursuant to the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-570, concerning out-of-
State motor vehicle convictions.
(b) A driver of a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-570, shall submit within
30 days of conviction a notice concerning an out-of-State conviction(s) for a
violation(s) of any law relating to motor vehicle traffic control to the following
Director, [Driver Management/Regulatory Affairs] Compliance and
Motor Vehicle Commission
PO Box 174
Trenton, New Jersey 08666-0174
SUBCHAPTER 10. POINT SYSTEM AND DRIVING DURING SUSPENSION
13:19-10.1 Point assessment
Any person who is convicted of any of the following offenses, including
offenses[,] committed while operating a motorized bicycle, shall be assessed
points for each conviction in accordance with the following schedule:
Section Number Offense Points
1. - 35. (No change.)
36. Driving in an unsafe manner (points 4
only assessed for the third or subsequent
violation[(s)] when that violation occurs
within [a] five years [period] of the most
recent prior offense)
37. - 54. (No change.)
SUBCHAPTER 12. MOTOR VEHICLE [INSURANCE] VIOLATIONS
13:19-12.1 Failure to pay surcharge; [Insurance] Motor Vehicle Violations
Surcharge System Bill
(a) (No change.)
(b) Surcharge notification shall be in the form of [an] a “[Insurance] Motor
Vehicle Violation Surcharge System Bill.” A person shall have 30
days from the date of surcharge notification to pay the surcharge
before his or her driving privileges are suspended by the Chief
Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission.
13:19-12.2 Requests for hearings
(a) (No change.)
(b) All requests for a surcharge hearing shall be sent to the following
State of New Jersey
[Automobile Insurance Surcharge and Collections] Motor Vehicle
Violations Surcharge System
PO Box 136
Trenton, New Jersey 08666-0136
13:19-12.11 Driving while intoxicated surcharges; installments
Licensees who are surcharged for driving while intoxicated convictions
may pay the surcharge in  up to 36 monthly installments pursuant to a
schedule established by the Chief Administrator of the Motor Vehicle
Commission. Failure to adhere to the payment schedule will result in the
immediate suspension of the licensee’s driving privileges.
13:19-12.12 Certificate of debt; installment payments; failure to pay
installment; suspension of driving privilege
(a) The Chief Administrator may, in his or her discretion, issue a
certificate of debt to the Clerk of the Superior Court in accordance with N.J.S.A.
17:29A-35b(2) identifying a person as indebted to the State of New Jersey under
the [New Jersey Merit Rating Plan] Motor Vehicle Violations Surcharge
(b) – (c) (No change.)
SUBCHAPTER 13. MOTOR VEHICLE [INSURANCE] VIOLATIONS
SURCHARGE SYSTEM; SUPPLEMENTAL SURCHARGES
13:19-13.1 Surcharges for three-year period; convictions; amounts
(a) [Plan] System surcharges shall be levied by the Motor Vehicle
Commission for convictions of violations set forth in (b) below, which
violations occurred on or after March 19, 1984, the effective date of
the original regulation. The surcharges shall be annually assessed
for a three-year period.
(b) (No change.)
13:19-13.2 Surcharges for three-year period; administrative violations;
(a) [Plan] System surcharges shall be levied by the Motor Vehicle
Commission for violations resulting in license suspensions imposed
administratively which are set forth in (b) below and which violations
or suspensions have occurred on or after March 19, 1984, the
effective date of the original regulation. The surcharge shall be
assessed each year for a three-year period and shall be in addition to
the license restoration fee charged pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:3-10a.
(b) (No change.)