Pennsylvania lawmakers, PennDOT and stakeholders push to simplify ignition‑interlock process after hearings on Act 33

Pennsylvania legislators, PennDOT officials and treatment‑court judges told a joint public hearing of the Senate and House Transportation Committees that the state’s ignition interlock system is confusing, slow and costly for people trying to comply with DUI sanctions and reenter the workforce.

At the hearing, witnesses described a mail‑only application process created under Act 33 of 2016 that often leaves applicants without a clear eligibility date and can require repeated uninstalls and reinstallations of interlock devices. “The application for Pennsylvania’s Ignition Interlock Limited License is complex, cumbersome, and full of opportunities for improvement,” said Chase Glasser, a board member of the SAFE Coalition. He urged statutory changes and administrative modernization, including online applications and email communications.

The testimony underscored why lawmakers and PennDOT say reform matters. PennDOT cited its crash facts and statistics: 25 percent of all traffic fatalities in the Commonwealth were alcohol related, and PennDOT reported impaired‑driver fatalities fell from 429 in 2023 to 342 in 2024. Research offered at the hearing described ignition interlocks as effective: vendors and advocates said interlocks reduce repeat offenses by roughly 70–75 percent while installed.

Jake Prigler, a Malvern resident who testified about his personal experience, said the mail‑based system left him uncertain whether he could legally drive even after spending thousands preparing to do so. “The current ILL process is tedious, antiquated, and very confusing,” Prigler said, and described paying roughly $1,400 for car repairs, $200 for inspection, $2,250 for an initial month of insurance, $250 to a vendor and about $500 in DMV fees while awaiting clarity. He said the uncertainty cost him time, money and professional credibility.

PennDOT Secretary Mike Carroll acknowledged the system’s faults. “To say that the, the current, process is flawed would be the understatement of the century,” Carroll told committee members, and said PennDOT has circulated draft legislative language to consolidate the two existing interlock license categories into a single interlock driver’s license and to give PennDOT authority to notify applicants earlier and provide clearer forms.

Testimony described concrete elements of the proposal under consideration: allow applicants to file a petition before installing a device, shorten PennDOT processing time (a suggested reduction from 20 days to 14 days), require faster electronic acknowledgement (3–5 days where applicable), permit treatment‑court participants to use an interlock while completing program requirements, and give applicants the option to use an interlock for any part of their suspension rather than forcing complicated date calculations. Vendors and advocates urged adding email updates and an online portal for application status.

Multiple speakers said the current rules can produce perverse outcomes: Act 33 requires only one vehicle to be fitted with an interlock, but stacked suspensions or unrelated suspensions that occur while an interlock term is running may force uninstallations and reinstallation costs. PennDOT staff explained that mechanical steps —court disposition, filing to the Association of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC), then PennDOT updating a driver record—create delays that the statutory rewrite aims to reduce.

Lackawanna County Judge Michael Barice, who leads DUI and drug‑court programs, told lawmakers the change would better align public safety and rehabilitation goals: “This bill that allows for an immediate ignition interlock, is a way of making sure that our communities are safe and that also a price is being paid,” he said, arguing that monitored driving by interlock is safer than driving while suspended.

Committee members and PennDOT officials noted remaining questions: whether vendor capacity is adequate (PennDOT said eight vendors are currently approved and that it believes installers could meet increased demand), how out‑of‑state recognition of Pennsylvania’s limited licenses should be handled, and how to treat subsequent DUI convictions that occur while a device is installed. PennDOT and stakeholders said the legislative fix is the appropriate place to resolve those policy questions.

The hearing produced no formal action. Chairs said they expect bicameral, bipartisan legislation this session; several members referenced Senate Bill 697 as a related measure under consideration. Committee leaders urged rapid negotiation of language and pledged follow‑up working‑group discussions with stakeholders and PennDOT. The hearing closed with lawmakers and PennDOT agreeing to continue developing statutory and administrative fixes intended to reduce processing times, clarify eligibility, and lower unnecessary costs for people seeking to comply with ignition‑interlock sanctions.

Less critical details from the hearing included advocates’ suggestion to allow applicants with other active suspensions to “bank” those suspensions to run after an interlock term, and repeated requests that PennDOT use email rather than mail for routine communications. Several legislators asked PennDOT to coordinate directly with affected constituents to resolve individual cases presented at the hearing.