Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the defendant was properly informed of the penalties associated with a refusal to submit to a chemical test by the Rights for Use at Station card even though the seventy-five dollar license reinstatement fee was not specifically enumerated therein. The reinstatement of a suspended license is optional and, therefore, the defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of the specific amount of the fee. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to sustain the violation against the defendant.