State v. Garthe

In State v. Garthe, 145 N.J. 1, 7, 678 A.2d 153 (1996), the Supreme Court held that the action of the State Police in setting forth procedures to test breathalyzer machines did not constitute rule-making to which the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act applied. The Court observed: Obviously, not every action of a State agency, including informal action, is subject to the formal notice and comment requirements of N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4. In making this qualitative determination, we have generally considered: (1) the segment of the public to be affected by the administrative action; (2) the generality of application of the agency action; (3) the prospectiveness of the result; (4) the novelty of any legal standard announced. George Harms Constr. Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 18, 644 A.2d 76 (1994). 145 N.J. 1, at 7, 678 A.2d 153.