in-20260923-IR-140250803RAA: Regulatory Analysis — 140 IAC (LSA #250803)

TITLE 140 BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES Readoption Review LSA Document #25-803

I. Statement Whether the Subject Matter Covered by the Rule Remains Carried out by the Agency

140 IAC 1-2-7 concerns the time limits within which the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) may send a request for evidence of financial responsibility after receiving the relevant accident report, abstract of court record, or judgment. The BMV continues to administer the statutory financial responsibility program under IC 9-25-3, IC 9-25-4, and IC 9-25-5, and thus continues to carry out the subject matter addressed by this rule. No statutory changes have reassigned authority to another agency. The BMV remains responsible for issuing requests for financial responsibility proof and enforcing related suspensions. 140 IAC 1-7-2 governs applications for self-insurance certificates, issuance and renewal requirements, and monthly updating procedures. The BMV continues to administer Indiana's self-insurance program under IC 9-25-4 and IC 9-14-8-3, including oversight of qualified self-insurers. No statutory amendments have transferred this core authority. The Bureau remains responsible for managing self-insurance qualifications. 140 IAC 1-7-3 establishes the financial collateral requirements for entities seeking approval as self-insurers. The rule specifies the minimum collateral amounts, acceptable forms of collateral, and conditions governing the deposit of such collateral. The BMV continues to be the agency responsible for administering Indiana's self-insurance program under IC 9-25-4 and IC 9-14-8-3. Reviewing applications, evaluating financial sufficiency, and maintaining collateral remains an active operational responsibility of the Bureau. There have been no statutory changes reassigning these duties. 140 IAC 1-7-4 governs the use and replacement of financial collateral posted by entities approved as self-insurers. The rule establishes that if a self-insurer is unable to satisfy its legal obligations the BMV may authorize payment from the collateral posted and require the self-insurer to replenish the withdrawn amount within seventy-two hours to retain its certificate. The BMV continues to administer the state's self-insurance program under IC 9-25 and IC 9-14-8-3, including oversight of collateral management and monitoring the solvency of self-insured entities. No statutory changes have reassigned this responsibility to any other agency. Thus, the subject matter of the rule remains fully carried out by the BMV. 140 IAC 1-7-5 requires self-insurers to furnish a schedule of motor vehicle claims incurred during the preceding calendar year at the time of application or renewal. The BMV reviews these schedules and may require additional collateral if claims exceed established thresholds. The rule aligns with the agency's continued statutory responsibility under IC 9-25-5 and IC 9-14-8-3 to oversee self-insurance programs and ensure financial assurance. No statutory changes have shifted this responsibility. 140 IAC 1-7-6 requires self-insurance administrators to furnish a copy of the master self-insurance certificate to their members and authorizes the BMV commissioner to recover the cost of forms provided to self-insurers. The BMV retains authority under IC 9-25 and IC 9-14-8-3 to supervise self-insurance programs, including documentation distribution and administrative fee recovery. No statutory changes have removed these duties. The Bureau continues to carry out all actions governed by this rule. 140 IAC 1-7-8 governs the circumstances under which the BMV Commissioner may cancel or refuse to renew a certificate of self-insurance and establishes procedural hearing requirements. The rule continues to fall within the BMV's statutory authority to regulate self-insurance under IC 9-25-4 and IC 9-14-8-3. The Bureau remains fully responsible for oversight, including certificate cancellation procedures. IC 9-14-8-3 specifically require the bureau to establish "rules and guidelines" for the suspension or revocation of driving privileges and registrations. 140 IAC 1-9-1 defines "reasonable ground" for suspensions and revocations of BMV-issued credentials. These guidelines are essential to the BMV's ongoing authority under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-30-4-6.1 to take administrative action based on fraudulent, unsafe, or incorrect credential issuance. The Bureau continues to carry out this regulatory function. The BMV continues to administer the notice requirements for suspensions and revocations of credentials under 140 IAC 1-9-3. This rule mandates that the Bureau notify individuals in writing when their driving privileges, vehicle registrations, license plates, or titles are suspended or revoked. The Bureau exercises full ongoing authority in this context under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-30-4. Its enforcement of detailed notification procedures remains active and integral to agency operations. 140 IAC 1-9-4 establishes procedures for administrative hearings when driving privileges, credentials, or registrations are suspended or revoked under sections 1(1) or 1(2) of the same rule. The BMV continues to issue suspensions and revocations and is responsible for overseeing related administrative reviews. This procedural authority remains vested in the Bureau under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-30-4, and no statutory changes have transferred these responsibilities elsewhere. 140 IAC 1-9-5 prescribes the administrative review process for individuals whose credentials have been suspended or revoked under sections 1(3) through 1(7) of Rule 1-9. This process includes the deadline for requests, submission of relevant documentation, and the automatic stay of action pending review. The BMV continues to administer this process under its statutory authority in IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-30-4. No statutory changes have reassigned this responsibility. 140 IAC 1-10-1 outlines the process by which individuals may request a review of BMV records to identify material errors under IC 9-33-2-1. It requires that the request specify the alleged error with reasonable particularity and include supporting documentation. The BMV continues its statutory role under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-33-2-1 to maintain accurate records and correct material errors in driving records. The rule remains within the Bureau's authority. IC 9-18.1-4-3 states that the Bureau shall adopt rules regarding, among other components, the "life cycle of license plates." 140 IAC 2-1-14 sets the life cycle for license plates issued by the BMV. It specifies that, absent a different designation, plates expire after ten registration years from initial issuance, with exceptions for specialty plates and others designated by the Commissioner. The BMV continues to be responsible for plate issuance and renewal under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-18.1-4-3, and the rule remains essential to this ongoing duty. 140 IAC 4-1.1-1 provides definitions for terms used in Article 4 (Driver Training and Education) rules. These definitions continue to be necessary for the BMV's Driver Examiner Division in implementing driver training school licensing and education under IC 9-27-6 and IC 9-24-10-4. The agency remains responsible for regulating driver education, and those definitions continue to support consistent program administration. This rule sets requirements for obtaining and renewing a driver training school license, including application contents, renewal timelines, ownership notification, and grounds for denial. The Driver Examiner Division, part of the BMV, continues to oversee driver training school licensing under statutory authority provided by IC 9-14-8-3, IC 9-27-6-6, and IC 9-27-6-11. No legislative changes have altered this responsibility, and the agency remains fully responsible for implementing and enforcing this rule. The BMV continues to regulate driver training school operations under 140 IAC 4-1.2-2. The rule remains active and essential, empowering the agency to oversee where and how licensed schools provide theoretical instruction, enforce staffing and location restrictions, monitor training with contractual clarity, and ensure transparency regarding collisions or legal actions. These oversight functions are exercised under statutory authority in IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions), IC 9-27-6-6 (the Bureau must adopt rules that state the requirements for obtaining a driver training school license), and IC 9-27-6-11 (the Bureau must adopt rules concerning licenses, instructors, and driver education), and remain integral to the Bureau's training school responsibilities. The BMV continues to oversee the acceptance of online theoretical driver training as part of licensed driver education programs through 140 IAC 4-1.2-3. This rule governs which online training programs may be credited toward Indiana driver's licensing requirements. Oversight of driver training curriculum is within the Bureau's authority under IC 9-14-8-3, IC 9-27-6-6, and IC 9-27-6-11. The rule remains active, enforced, and integral to driver education compliance. 140 IAC 4-1.3-1 establishes application, eligibility, documentation, and renewal requirements for individuals seeking a driver training instructor license. The BMV continues to administer driver training licensing under IC 9-27-6 and IC 9-14-8-3, and the rule is still central to BMV's regulatory framework for training schools and instructors. The Bureau actively processes instructor applications, evaluates background checks, reviews medical qualifications, and oversees license renewals. The BMV continues to administer and enforce the requirements governing driver training instructor conduct and qualifications as set forth in 140 IAC 4-1.3-2. This responsibility remains fully within the agency's jurisdiction, and no statutory or administrative changes have reassigned oversight of instructor conduct standards to any other entity. Oversight of instructor training programs remains with the BMV under IC 9-27-6-6 and IC 9-27-6-11, and the rule continues to be administered in full by the agency. The BMV continues to manage and enforce the fee structure associated with driver training licensing under 140 IAC 4-1.4-1. The agency retains full authority over establishing, collecting, and administering these fees, with no shift in jurisdiction since the rule was last readopted. The BMV continues to exercise full authority over the suspension or revocation of licenses issued to driver training schools and instructors as provided for in 140 IAC 4-1.5-1. No transfer of jurisdiction has occurred, and the Bureau continues active administration of these enforcement powers under IC 9-27-6. The BMV maintains full authority over insurance requirements applicable to motor vehicles used by licensed driver training schools, as provided in 140 IAC 4-1.5-2. The rule remains under BMV jurisdiction and has not been relocated to another administrative authority. The BMV continues to hold full authority to conduct audits and investigations of driver training schools as set forth in 140 IAC 4-1.5-3. The agency retains oversight responsibility under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-27-6, and administration of these compliance provisions remains within the Bureau's jurisdiction. The BMV continues to administer hearing rights under 140 IAC 4-1.5-4 in connection with license actions against driver training schools and instructors. Responsibility remains with the BMV under the authority of IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-27-6, and no jurisdictional changes have occurred. The BMV continues to retain full authority to grant hardship waivers of statutory age and behind-the-wheel experience requirements for initial operator and chauffeur licenses. This responsibility falls under IC 9-24-3-3, which states that the Bureau must adopt rules "to state the conditions under which the requirements [of age and experience] may be waived." The agency continues to administer and exercise this waiver process, and no jurisdictional transfers affecting this rule have occurred. The BMV continues to retain full authority to administer the application rule governing driver education classes under 140 IAC 4-4-1. This rule, which applies to both licensed driver training schools and state-employed driver examiners, is supported by statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-24-10-4. The agency's jurisdiction has not shifted since the rule was last readopted and remains fully within the BMV's purview. The BMV retains full authority to establish and enforce theoretical driver training standards under 140 IAC 4-4-1.1. This jurisdiction is based on statutory authority in IC 9-14-8-3 which instructs the Bureau to create rules to carry out its functions. IC 9-27-6-11 also instructs the Bureau to adopt rules concerning standards for driver education curriculum. The BMV remains fully authorized to enforce standards for behind-the-wheel training provided by driver training schools. This jurisdiction is based on statutory authority in IC 9-14-8-3 which instructs the Bureau to create rules to carry out its functions. IC 9-27-6-11 also instructs the Bureau to adopt rules concerning standards for driver education curriculum. Administration of this rule continues seamlessly within the agency's existing oversight framework. The BMV continues to administer standards for driver training school vehicles as set forth in 140 IAC 4-4-1.3. This regulatory responsibility remains firmly within the agency's authority under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-27-6-6, with no transfer of jurisdiction since the rule was last adopted. IC 9-27-6-11 also instructs the Bureau to adopt rules concerning standards for driver education equipment. The BMV continues to administer instructional hour requirements, attendance standards, and permit invalidation procedures for driver education under 140 IAC 4-4-6. These responsibilities fall directly under IC 9-14-8-3, IC 9-27-6-6, and IC 9-27-6-11. In particular, 9-27-6-11 requires the Bureau to adopt rules concerning minimum hours of instruction and limitations on the number of hours a student can receive per day. The Bureau remains the agency responsible, and no transfer of jurisdiction has occurred. The BMV continues to administer and enforce the academic completion requirements for driver education programs under 140 IAC 4-4-7. Authority remains with the agency pursuant to IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-24-10-4, and no transfer of jurisdiction has occurred. The BMV continues to administer the examination requirements for applicants whose prior Indiana driver's license has expired. Under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-24-11-2, the BMV retains full regulatory and operational authority over driver licensing procedures, including the testing obligations triggered when a license has lapsed. These responsibilities have not been transferred to any other agency and remain actively carried out by the BMV. The BMV continues to administer the examination requirements governing applicants who seek an Indiana driver's license after their out-of-state license has expired. These responsibilities arise under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-24-11-2, and no authority has been transferred to another agency. The BMV remains the entity charged with reviewing eligibility, administering examinations, and determining whether applicants from other jurisdictions sufficiently demonstrate competency to resume licensed driving in Indiana. The BMV continues to hold full authority for administering salvage and rebuilt title processes under 140 IAC 6-1-16.5. The BMV remains the entity responsible under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-22-3-1 for issuing salvage titles, rebuilt titles, and associated documentation for vehicles that have been damaged, restored, or reconstructed. No statutory or administrative changes have reassigned this authority. 140 IAC 7-1.1-4 governs the documentation required for applicants whose medical conditions may cause them to appear intoxicated when applying for a driver's license under IC 9-24-11-9. The BMV continues to administer these licensing determinations and remains the responsible authority under IC 9-14-8-3, IC 9-24-11-2, and IC 9-24-11-9. No statutory or administrative changes have shifted this responsibility to another agency. The BMV continues to administer all processes related to the issuance of interim driver's licenses, permits, and identification cards as prescribed in 140 IAC 7-1.2-1. The authority to issue interim credentials falls directly under IC 9-14-8-3 and various provisions of IC 9-24, and no jurisdictional changes have altered the Bureau's responsibility. The BMV continues to administer motorcycle operational skills tests and regulate the associated fee structure as prescribed in 140 IAC 7-2-9. The authority for imposing and overseeing these fees remains with the agency under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-24-8. No transfer of authority has occurred, and the Bureau continues to rely on this rule when approving, monitoring, and compensating motorcycle skills test examiners. The subject matter of 140 IAC 7-3-2 continues to fall directly within the responsibilities of the BMV. The rule governs two fundamental components of Indiana's commercial driver's license (CDL) program: the requirement that a person holding a CDL may not hold more than one driver's license at the same time, and the provision establishing that a CDL expires at midnight on the applicant's birthday four years after issuance. Both provisions remain supported by the rule's statutory authority, IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-24-6.1-2, which still task the BMV with administration of CDL standards. No statutory amendments or organizational changes have shifted responsibility for these matters away from the agency. 140 IAC 7-3-13 governs certified CDL skills test examiner qualifications. This continues to address subject matter currently administered by the bureau, as they are responsible for commercial driver licensing. The bureau remains charged with evaluating and approving individuals who conduct CDL skills examinations and continues to rely on a defined set of examiner qualifications to ensure the integrity, uniformity, and safety of CDL testing. These responsibilities remain fully within the bureau's present statutory authority. The BMV continues to administer the certification, suspension, and revocation of commercial driver's license (CDL) skills test examiners under 140 IAC 7-3-14. The agency maintains full authority and responsibility in this area pursuant to IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-24-6.1-2. These statutes remain active, and the rule remains integral to the Bureau's ongoing regulatory functions. The BMV retains responsibility for enforcing the requirement that Commercial Driver's License holders must notify the Bureau and their employer after any traffic control conviction. 140 IAC 7-3-18.5 continues to fall squarely within the Bureau's commercial driver licensing authority under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-24-6.1-2. The rule remains active and operational under state law. The BMV continues to operate and manage the Indiana emergency contact database through implementation of 140 IAC 7-6-1. Under this rule, the Bureau establishes, updates, and maintains emergency contact information for credential holders, aligning with statutory authority provided by IC 9-26-10. The BMV continues to administer procedures for handling dishonored or rejected payments (such as bounced checks, declined credit cards, or e-checks) under 140 IAC 8-3-29. The rule authorizes the Bureau to create collection files, issue payment notices, suspend licenses or registrations, and reinstate transactions following payment. It remains fully within the Bureau's authority under IC 9-14-8-3, and enforcement is ongoing as part of regular licensing and registration operations. The BMV continues to oversee testing conducted at license branches pursuant to 140 IAC 8-6-1. The rule governs the timing of knowledge and skills examinations administered under IC 9-24-10-4. The Bureau retains full responsibility for exam scheduling policies and enforcement, consistent with existing statute and administrative practice. The BMV retains full authority over motorboat registrations pursuant to 140 IAC 9-4-1. The rule specifies the required format for motorboat registration numbers and continues to govern this function, aligned with the statutory framework under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-18.1-14.5-5. Its administration remains active and integral to BMV operations. The BMV continues to oversee the regulation and display requirements for motorboat registration numbers. Under 140 IAC 9-4-2.5, the Bureau maintains authority to mandate how registration numbers must be displayed on watercraft. This responsibility remains firmly within the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-18.1-14.5, and the rule's subject matter remains active and in use within the agency's regulatory portfolio. The BMV continues to administer watercraft registrations under IC 9-18.1-14.5, including cancellation of registrations when a motorboat is found to be registered in another state. 140 IAC 9-4-6.5 remains squarely within the Bureau's authority under IC 9-14-8-3 and is actively implemented as part of the agency's registration operations.

II. Rationale for the Continued Need for the Rule

The rule remains necessary to implement the financial responsibility program established by statute. It ensures that the BMV issues requests for evidence of financial responsibility within clear, reasonable, and statutorily aligned time limits. Specifically, subsection (a) establishes a three-year period for the BMV to receive accident reports before sending a financial responsibility request, and subsection (b) provides the same three-year window for receipt of abstracts or judgments. These provisions continue to support accurate, timely administration of the financial responsibility statutes. The problems addressed by the rule still exist: (1) accident reports and court abstracts continue to be received at varying times; and (2) the BMV requires consistent deadlines for initiating financial responsibility actions. The rule provides clarity and operational certainty while ensuring that individuals are not subject to requests based on excessively old incidents. This rule also minimizes expenses as it imposes no fees and prevents administrative inefficiencies that could result from processing stale cases. It also uses the least restrictive means by implementing statutory requirements without placing obligations beyond what is necessary while also avoiding duplication because no other federal or state standard prescribes these specific timelines. The rule has ease of comprehension as well as enforcement due to the rule including clear deadlines stated in straightforward language and is directly tied to operational processes already in place. Therefore, the rule remains easy to administer. This rule outlines procedural and documentation requirements for first-time self-insurance applicants, including a 30-day advance application deadline, specific information and affidavits required, issuance of certificates, and annual renewals every January 2. These procedures enable the BMV to ensure that applicants meet statutory financial responsibility requirements before acting as self-insurers. The rule remains critical: (1) self-insurance carries significant financial risk; and (2) oversight is necessary to maintain assurance that entities can compensate claimants. The rule's clarity and specificity support regulatory consistency and reduce risk of underinsured motor vehicle operations. The rule minimizes expenses by avoiding insurance intermediary costs such that Bureau costs align with existing administrative capacities. In addition, it uses the least restrictive means by setting application windows and documentation requirements while preserving due process through administrative review. Duplication is avoided by operationalizing statutory self-insurance provisions without imposing extra layers. The rule is also clearly written, delineating what information is required, who reviews it, time frames for renewal, and issuance steps. Lastly, the rule is practicable for enforcement. Administrative staff can reliably track master lists, renewals, and certificate issuance via routine record systems. Each criterion is met, justifying the rule's continued use. Entities may qualify as self-insurers in lieu of purchasing traditional motor vehicle liability insurance. Because self-insurance shifts the financial risk of accidents directly onto the entity, the BMV must ensure that applicants possess sufficient financial capacity to meet potential claims. This rule establishes the minimum collateral required: $50,000 for the first vehicle and $20,000 for each additional vehicle, up to a maximum of $1,000,000, with adjustments permitted if statutory requirements change. The rule further defines which forms of collateral may be accepted (United States currency or securities, evidence of escrow deposits, irrevocable letters of credit, and surety bonds) and clarifies that collateral held does not earn interest. These standards remain necessary to preserve financial stability and protect claimants. The continued need for the rule is supported by: (1) ongoing applications for self-insurance; (2) the state's interest in ensuring claimants can be compensated; (3) statutory requirements under IC 9-25-4; and (4) the necessity of maintaining uniform collateral standards to avoid financial risk. The rule meets IC 4-22-2-19.5 standards by minimizing public risk, providing clear collateral requirements, avoiding duplication, ensuring comprehensibility, and enabling practical enforcement. Under IC 4-22-2-19.5, the rule meets each standard: (1) Expenses are minimized because it avoids burdensome insurance premiums by permitting self-insurance and limits collateral to amounts set by statute, requiring no ongoing fees; (2) it accomplishes this in the least restrictive means because the rule mandates only collateral proportional to covered vehicles and accepts multiple forms of collateral, offering flexibility; (3) the rule avoids duplication because it implements statutory financial responsibility standards and expands upon them; (4) the rule has ease of comprehension because it clearly stipulates amounts, acceptable collateral types, and the lack of interest; and (5) enforcement is practicable because collateral is held by the State Treasurer or Bureau. Documentation and accepted collateral types support efficient administration. Self-insurers assume direct financial responsibility for claims arising from the operation of their motor vehicles. Because the financial exposure can be significant, the state must ensure that adequate collateral is available to cover any unpaid judgments. 140 IAC 1-7-4 authorizes the BMV to (1) apply the posted collateral to outstanding obligations if the self-insurer fails to pay and (2) require the self-insurer to replace any withdrawn collateral within seventy-two hours. This rule is essential for maintaining solvency protections and ensuring that individuals harmed in motor vehicle incidents are properly compensated. The rule continues to address conditions that remain prevalent: risks of insolvency, delayed judgment payments, and the need for clear authority to access collateral. The rule does this in a way that minimizes expenses and is the least restrictive means, as it ensures claims are satisfied without shifting costs to the state or claimants while also only applying when a self-insurer fails to meet their obligations. In addition, it avoids duplication as there are no overlapping federal or state requirements that govern this specific process. It is also both comprehensible and easily enforceable as the rule uses clear and straightforward language while giving the Bureau clear authority and timelines for enforcement. The rule ensures that the BMV has visibility into claim trends and history and can adjust collateral requirements accordingly. Specifically, subsection (a) mandates disclosure of all claims from the previous year, while subsection (b) permits the commissioner to require additional collateral of up to $40,000 per vehicle if claim frequency or severity indicates heightened risk. This process supports the integrity of self-insurance, mitigating risk to claimants. The rule remains necessary for maintaining financial stability, enabling proactive oversight, and preventing under-collateralization. It satisfies IC 4-22-2-19.5 by: minimizing expenses by allowing collateral increases solely when justified by excessive claims; using the least restrictive manner by permitting self-insurance and limiting additional collateral to no more than $40,000 per vehicle; avoiding duplication as its standards are not found elsewhere; being written in clear and understandable language; and having practical enforcement by granting the commissioner objective authority to adjust collateral based on claim levels. The rule ensures that all covered members receive official documentation verifying their self-insurance status. Requiring the master certificate minimizes confusion and supports enforcement actions when vehicles are operated under self-insurance coverage. Authorizing form-cost recovery enables the BMV to maintain administrative efficiency without drawing on general funds. This rule is necessary to support transparency, prevent improper self-insurance practices, and reimburse administrative expenses in a reasonable, recoverable manner. It also aligns with IC 4-22-2-19.5 standards: expenses are minimized by limiting obligations to issuing copies of the master certificate and allowing only recovery of form-related costs; the least restrictive means are used by simply requiring self-insurance administrators to distribute certificates to members; duplication is avoided by providing standards not present elsewhere; the rule is written in clear and understandable language for ease of comprehension; and the rule has practicable enforcement because administrators have a clear, verifiable duty to issue certificates and the commissioner has authority to recover costs of forms. To protect the public and maintain the integrity of the self-insurance program, the Commissioner must have authority to act when specific occurrences take place that would otherwise pose an unnecessary risk. These occurrences include: (1) when collateral is inadequate or claims exceed posted collateral; (2) a self-insurer has filed for bankruptcy; (3) claim volume is excessive; (4) a judgment has not been paid within 30 days; and (5) the self-insurer's license or registration has been suspended or revoked. Without this rule, such situations would go unchecked. Additionally, the rule ensures due process by requiring at least 15 days' notice and an opportunity for hearing prior to cancellation or nonrenewal, except in cases of failure to maintain collateral. This framework remains essential to safeguard claimants' interests and uphold program stability. It also complies with IC 4-22-2-19.5: it minimizes expenses by allowing certificate cancellation only when serious deficiencies exist, preventing unnecessary administrative action; it uses least restrictive means by requiring notice and an opportunity for a hearing before most cancellations; it avoids duplication by providing standards not present elsewhere; it is written for ease of comprehension through its clear list of factual grounds for cancellation and straightforward procedural language; and it has practicable enforcement because it provides objective triggers for cancellation and a defined hearing process to administer compliance. The rule defines "reasonable ground" for administrative suspension or revocation of driver's licenses, permits, identification cards, and registration documents. It maintains essential flexibility to address misconduct or errors not specifically listed in statute, enabling prompt corrective action to prevent misuse, fraud, or safety hazards. Under IC 4-22-2-19.5, the rule satisfies each standard: (1) It minimizes expenses because it imposes no fees or additional administrative costs on regulated individuals; and (2) compliance and enforcement rely on existing Bureau infrastructure. It offers the least restrictive means because the rule targets specific qualifying grounds reserving suspension authority only for misconduct that matters. It avoids duplication because it supplements statutory suspension authority without duplicating regulations, offering administrative clarity where statutes are silent on procedural specifics. It has ease of comprehension because the rule lists clear, discrete categories of reasons constituting "reasonable ground." The rule has practicable enforcement because the Bureau uses the structured definition to assess disciplinary actions effectively. It underpins prompt administrative decisions that protect public safety. By aligning with these standards, the rule provides necessary regulatory structure without undue cost or intrusiveness. The rule ensures individuals are properly informed when adverse actions are taken against their credentials. Thorough and timely notification is critical for due process, enabling recipients to understand the basis for action and pursue review. Expenses are kept to a minimum because it does not impose fees on individuals or the Bureau, as the agency already issues administrative notices as part of standard procedures. It also adopts the least restrictive approach by simply providing written notice with review instructions, rather than employing more intrusive communication methods. Duplication is avoided by detailing notification requirements that statute references indirectly; no other rule provides the specific content and timelines for review eligibility. It is clearly written, outlining precisely that notices must describe the Bureau's action, inform the recipient of an eighteen-day window to request a review, and provide instructions for requesting such a review. It is practicable to enforce, as Bureau systems can generate required notices consistently and staff are trained to ensure all relevant actions trigger the notification template. These elements collectively affirm that the rule remains necessary, effective, and appropriately balanced under IC 4-22-2-19.5. The rule demonstrates the Bureau's commitment to due process by guaranteeing individuals the right to an administrative hearing. It specifies critical timelines, submission requirements for supporting evidence, and factors the administrative law judge may consider, such as the age and intent of the individual or the risk of repeat fraud. These procedural provisions are essential to ensure fairness, clarity, and consistency. Without them, the Bureau's authority to take administrative action could face legal challenge, and individuals would lack clarity about their rights and obligations. Under IC 4-22-2-19.5, it minimizes expenses by relying on existing Bureau hearings infrastructure, without imposing new administrative costs or hearing fees on individuals. It employs the least restrictive means by supplying a defined process and notifying applicants of their right to request a review within 18 days, ensuring rights restoration without formal court proceedings. It avoids duplication by specifying administrative review rights where statute authorizes but does not set procedural detail. It is clearly written, with precise requirements on the scope and timing of reviews, submission of documentation, and hearing content. It is practicable to enforce; Bureau and ALJ systems already track cases, manage stays upon timely requests, and hear relevant factors ranging from intent to hardship. By satisfying these criteria, the rule ensures effective, fair, and accessible administrative review for affected individuals. The rule ensures procedural fairness by providing an 18-day window for affected individuals to request review, stipulating that all relevant information must be submitted, and automatically staying enforcement actions until a determination is made. These elements protect due process, minimize potential harm from immediate suspensions, and streamline administrative operations. The rule minimizes expenses by limiting review procedures to a simple document submission and stay-pending-determination process. It also uses the least restrictive manner by allowing administrative review without requiring a full evidentiary hearing. The rule avoids duplicating other laws by addressing only administrative review for suspensions under section 1(3)-1(7) within the BMV's statutory authority. The rule is written for ease of comprehension by clearly outlining time limits, submission requirements, and review procedures in straightforward language. The rule has practicable enforcement because it provides a defined request-and-review process that the Bureau can readily administer and verify. This approach aligns with IC 4-22-2-19.5 by being clear, minimally burdensome, enforceable, and avoiding duplication of statutory or federal mandates. Ensuring record accuracy is essential to protect individuals' rights and prevent administrative harm arising from inaccuracies. By codifying a standardized procedure, including the level of specificity required and inclusion of supporting documents, the rule aids efficient and fair record reviews. This clarity promotes transparency and due process, aligning with IC 4-22-2-19.5 standards: it minimizes costs by avoiding ad hoc requests; it achieves the regulatory goal in the least restrictive manner by providing a straightforward mechanism for correcting material errors without imposing additional procedural burdens; it avoids duplicating other laws by addressing only the specific material-error review process authorized under IC 9-33-2-1; it is written for ease of comprehension through its clear, concise two-part requirement for initiating a review; and it has practicable enforcement because it establishes objective submission criteria that the bureau can readily verify when reviewing alleged record errors. The rule provides consistent expectations for when license plates must be replaced, promoting uniform administration. It allows flexibility for specialty plates, which may require shorter cycles due to design changes or negotiation with specialty groups. A consistent plate lifespan facilitates efficient registry operations, reduces confusion at renewal, and prevents nonstandard issuance. The rule minimizes expenses by establishing a default ten-year license plate life cycle that reduces replacement frequency. It also uses the least restrictive means by giving the commissioner discretion to tailor plate lifespans without imposing burdensome or uniform mandates. The rule avoids duplication of other laws by focusing solely on the life-cycle parameters for plates within Indiana's registration framework and is written for ease of comprehension through its clear structure. Lastly, it is readily enforceable because it provides objective, administratively simple criteria for determining when plates must be cycled out or may remain in circulation. Therefore, it satisfies IC 4-22-2-19.5. The definitions rule promotes clarity and consistency across Article 4 rules. By standardizing terminology, such as differentiating between theoretical and behind-the-wheel training; defining key actors; and identifying required licenses, the rule ensures that regulated entities understand their obligations without ambiguity. These definitions meet IC 4-22-2-19.5 criteria: it minimizes expenses by providing a single consolidated set of definitions; uses the least restrictive means by defining only essential terms needed to administer driver training; avoids duplicating state or federal law by cross-referencing existing statutory definitions instead of restating them; is written for ease of comprehension through short, direct definitional statements; and has practicable enforcement because clear terminology ensures consistent interpretation and application of the rules across schools, instructors, and the bureau. Ensuring that driver training schools are properly vetted supports public safety by verifying program quality, instructor qualifications, insurance coverage, and financial responsibility. The rule establishes standardized application procedures, including fingerprint-based criminal background checks, evidence of insurance, owner information, tuition schedules, contracts, and licensing renewal deadlines. The rule also specifies the license is nontransferable, requires updates on changes within 10 days, and grants denial authority for misrepresentation or disqualification. It minimizes expenses by avoiding duplication of oversight because applicants submit information once via the prescribed form and within existing operations. No additional fees are imposed beyond standard licensing fees, and no new administrative burden is introduced beyond routine review. The rule employs the least restrictive means by clearly specifying required documentation, such as basic identifying information, tuition schedule, contracts, insurance certificates, and background checks, while granting the Bureau discretion to request only "any further information" reasonably necessary. Licensing denials are narrowly limited to objective criteria like failure to meet statutory qualifications, provision of false information, criminal history related to dishonesty, or violations of statutes or rules. It avoids duplication by implementing statutory licensing authority under IC 9-27-6 through administrative rule without overlapping other regulation. It enhances clarity by enumerating each requirement and associated timeline, including submission deadline for renewals and a ten-day change-notification obligation. Enforcement is practicable: licensing personnel can review application materials, conduct background-check assessments, monitor corporate and location listings, and issue denials when criteria are unmet. The inclusion of fingerprint-based national background checks and insurance certification supports reliable review and efficient enforcement. The rule establishes operational standards for driver training schools to ensure consistent instruction quality, consumer protection, and public safety. These objectives remain relevant and necessary. Furthermore, the Bureau is statutorily required to maintain rules on this subject matter. Under IC 4-22-2-19.5, expenses are minimized because the rule imposes only essential requirements, such as written contracts, record maintenance, and compliance with operational standards. These obligations limit costs to regulated entities and consumers. The least restrictive means is used because requirements focus solely on operational and instructional integrity without unnecessary procedural burdens. Duplication is avoided because no federal requirements govern the same operational elements. State provisions do not duplicate other laws. There is ease of comprehension because the provisions are structured in a direct, rule-based format to ensure clarity for regulated entities. Enforcement is practicable because the rule sets clear expectations, facilitating enforcement by the BMV. The rule safeguards the quality of theoretical instruction by allowing driver training schools to accept online training certificates only if specific conditions are met. It ensures that online curricula align with Indiana's standards and that students are enrolled in licensed schools and meet age requirements. It imposes no fees on students or schools, instead leveraging existing licensure and approval processes, thereby minimizing cost. It permits adoption of online coursework given Bureau approval, subject to clear requirements. This avoids banning online methods while ensuring educational quality. Rather than creating parallel standards, it ties directly to existing theoretical training requirements in 140 IAC 4-4-1.1, avoiding redundancy. The rule lists four straightforward criteria schools must satisfy before accepting online certificates, using plain language. Bureau staff can verify compliance by reviewing curriculum approval, enrollment status, age records, and provider disclosures. These criteria integrate into routine licensing oversight. As such, the rule meets IC 4-22-2-19.5 standards. 140 IAC 4-1.3-1 ensures that instructors responsible for teaching novice drivers meet minimum safety, education, character, and health standards. The requirements remain necessary to ensure the integrity and competency of driver education programs across Indiana. Evaluated against IC 4-22-2-19.5: The rule minimizes expenses for applicants and regulated entities, as it relies on commonly available documentation (e.g., physical exams, driver records) and imposes only a single affordable application fee under an associated fee rule. The rule uses the least restrictive means, offering two pathways to qualification: postsecondary credit hours plus driver-ed coursework, or completion of a Bureau-approved instructor program. This allows flexibility for career entrants. It avoids duplication by implementing statutory requirements for instructor certification without replicating federal standards or other Indiana credential systems. It is written clearly, listing each required document, qualification, and procedural obligation, enabling applicants and schools to comply without ambiguity. Enforcement is practicable because all criteria can be verified with routine documentation already collected by the BMV. The ability to issue restricted licenses for theoretical-only instruction adds further administrative flexibility. 140 IAC 4-1.3-2 remains necessary because it establishes the expectations essential to ensuring safe, lawful, and professional behavior among driver training instructors. The rule requires instructors to adhere to curriculum standards, ensure proper documentation, verify student eligibility, and refrain from behaviors that may compromise student safety or public confidence. These provisions fulfill the standards in IC 4-22-2-19.5 by minimizing unnecessary burden and ensuring that regulation is strictly tied to public safety and instructional integrity. The rule is written in a clear and enforceable manner and does not duplicate any existing federal standards. The underlying need persists because the risks associated with improper instruction or unprofessional conduct are ongoing, and no less intrusive alternatives would sufficiently protect the public. The twelve-hour instruction limit, the prohibition on impaired teaching, and the requirement that instructors be properly licensed each contribute to achieving regulatory goals in the least restrictive feasible manner. The rule also avoids redundancy by regulating only those conduct requirements specific to instructors and not addressed elsewhere. 140 IAC 4-1.3-3 ensures that all instructor training programs meet minimum instructional standards, including at least ten hours of classroom instruction aligned with the theoretical training standards in 140 IAC 4-4-1.1, and that completion documentation is issued to trainees. Providers must submit detailed applications that include curriculum, materials, instructor identities, sample certificates, and any supplementary information requested by the BMV. This comprehensive review enables the agency to approve only those programs that meet established statewide instructional expectations. The rule satisfies IC 4-22-2-19.5 because it minimizes costs by limiting administrative requirements to materials already needed for program operation, while ensuring that regulatory objectives are accomplished in a narrowly tailored and effective manner. It does not duplicate other federal or state laws and remains written in an accessible and enforceable format. It also supports practicable enforcement by giving the Bureau objective criteria to determine whether a program qualifies for approval or remains compliant. The rule sets forth a structured schedule of fees necessary to support proper administration of the driver training licensing system. It defines application, renewal, and amendment/replacement fees for instructors and training schools, while exempting certain public educational institutions. These fees cover administrative costs and contribute to regulatory oversight, thus serving an ongoing public interest. The rule complies with IC 4-22-2-19.5 because it minimizes expenses by setting low, fixed fees for instructor and school licensing; it uses the least restrictive means by imposing only straightforward fee requirements without adding procedural or administrative hurdles; it avoids duplicating state or federal law by addressing only fee amounts and exemptions rather than restating licensing criteria found elsewhere in statute; it is written for ease of comprehension through a simple, clearly itemized list of fees, exemptions, and resubmission provisions; and it has practicable enforcement because the Bureau can easily verify payment, apply exemptions, and administer fee-related actions based on the objective, numerical standards laid out in the rule. Section 4-1.5-1 remains necessary to provide clear and consistent criteria for license suspension or revocation. In addition to statutory oversight, it identifies specific circumstances that warrant enforcement action. Examples of such circumstances include failure to maintain licensure requirements, violation of statutes or regulation, inconsistent training practices, submission of false information, or failure to cooperate with Bureau audits. The rule specifies how the Bureau may evaluate violations by considering severity, recurrence, willfulness, dishonesty, and prior history. It further prescribes procedural fairness by requiring written notice by first-class mail to the affected licensee. These elements continue to serve critical accountability and public safety needs. The rule complies with IC 4-22-2-19.5 because it minimizes expenses by relying on straightforward administrative criteria rather than imposing costly operational mandates; it uses the least restrictive means by permitting graduated enforcement actions ranging from written warnings to suspension or revocation based on the severity and circumstances of violations; it avoids duplicating other laws by incorporating existing statutory obligations by reference rather than restating them; is written for ease of comprehension through its clear list of grounds for discipline and the objective factors the Bureau may consider; and supports practicable enforcement because it provides concrete, verifiable triggers for disciplinary action and a defined notification process. This rule mandates that driver training schools must provide a certificate of insurance demonstrating minimum coverage for vehicles used in training. These insurance requirements are essential to protect student drivers and the public in case of accidents involving training vehicles. The rule continues to fulfill the criteria under IC 4-22-2-19.5: expenses are minimized by requiring only the maintenance of basic, clearly defined minimum insurance coverage; the least restrictive means are used by setting straightforward coverage thresholds without prescribing specific carriers or policy structures; avoids duplicating other laws by referencing the statutory insurance requirements applicable to driver training schools rather than repeating them, is written for ease of comprehension through its simple list of required coverage amounts and submission obligations, and supports practicable enforcement because the bureau can easily verify compliance through certificates of insurance and deny or revoke licenses when minimum coverage is not met. This section remains essential for ensuring driver training schools meet statutory and regulatory obligations. It authorizes the Bureau to audit or investigate schools and requires schools to maintain records demonstrating licensure qualifications and student training activity for the prior two years. Required records include student names, addresses, dates of course commencement and completion, instructor names, instruction types and hours, official driving skills test results, and copies of the skills test routes. Schools must allow BMV representatives to inspect and copy these records and inspect facilities during normal operating hours. These provisions satisfy IC 4-22-2-19.5 criteria because the rule minimizes expenses by requiring only the maintenance of basic records and allowing routine inspections without imposing specialized or costly reporting systems; uses the least restrictive means by focusing narrowly on recordkeeping and permitting audits rather than mandating continuous monitoring; avoids duplication of state law by referencing existing statutory licensing and record obligations instead of repeating them; is written for ease of comprehension through clear lists detailing what records must be kept and made available; and has practicable enforcement because the Bureau can easily verify compliance through straightforward audits and on-site inspections. This section guarantees fairness by ensuring that any applicant whose license application is denied, or whose license is suspended or revoked, is entitled to an administrative hearing consistent with the Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (IC 4-21.5). Such procedural provisions are essential for due process, enabling affected parties to challenge decisions and present evidence. The rule satisfies IC 4-22-2-19.5 by imposing a narrowly tailored requirement that directly addresses fairness without excess or duplication. It is clear, enforceable, and fully supports the public interest by enhancing the legitimacy and transparency of license enforcement efforts. The waiver rule addresses specific, serious circumstances where an individual may lack alternative drivers yet requires independent mobility. For example, to drive a family member to medical care or to support household finances. These thoughtfully delineated objective criteria safeguard the waiver process from misuse while providing necessary flexibility. The rule aligns with IC 4-22-2-19.5 standards by imposing narrowly tailored requirements that satisfy legitimate public need without imposing undue regulatory burden. It avoids redundancy, as no federal counterpart governs hardship licensing, and its provisions are clearly prescribed and enforceable. 140 IAC 4-4-1 continues to serve the critical function of establishing which entities are subject to regulatory oversight. By clearly identifying that the rule applies to teacher entities, including both private training schools and state driver examiners, the section ensures that all relevant parties are subject to regulatory requirements throughout the driver education process. The rule minimizes expenses by simply establishing the applicability of the driver education rules without creating new costs or operational burdens, uses the least restrictive means by clearly stating which entities are subject to the rule rather than imposing substantive requirements, avoids duplicating existing statutes by referencing IC 9-27-4 instead of repeating statutory language, is written for ease of comprehension through its brief and direct scope statement, and supports practicable enforcement because defining the scope up front provides clarity for compliance and auditing.. As such, it satisfies IC 4-22-2-19.5. Without this foundational rule, both oversight and consistency in class administration could be compromised. 140 IAC 4-4-1.1 specifies a detailed list of topics that licensed driver training schools must cover during classroom or Internet-based instruction. These topics include knowledge of Indiana motor vehicle statutes and administrative rules; railroad-highway crossing safety; defensive and safe driving practices; driving techniques in various environments; driver responsibility; accident reporting; mental and physical fitness factors; substance impact; distracted driving; vehicle maintenance; emergency handling; driving skills; and organ donation procedures. The rule ensures comprehensive, standardized instruction aligned with public safety objectives. It satisfies IC 4-22-2-19.5 by minimizing expenses via requiring only instructional coverage of already-established safety and driving topics rather than mandating special materials or external programs. It also uses the lease restrictive means by focusing on essential driver-safety concepts without prescribing a specific curriculum format and avoids duplication by referencing and incorporating existing motor vehicle laws instead of restating them. It is written for ease of comprehension through clear itemized subject areas and has practicable enforcement because the required topics are objective, observable, and readily verifiable during school review or audit.. 140 IAC 4-4-1.2 establishes detailed requirements for in-vehicle training, mandating instruction and demonstration of essential driving skills such as stopping, starting, lane changes, signaling, backing, steering, merging, speed control, and safe interactions with other vehicles including motorcycles, bicycles, and trucks. The rule also requires incorporation of school zones, railroad crossings, and roundabout protocols where these features are within a 20-minute radius of the school. These specifications ensure consistency and comprehensiveness in driver training and reflect best practices in public safety. IC 4-22-2-19.5 muster is met because expenses are minimized by requiring only standard behind-the-wheel instruction using widely available vehicle features; the least restrictive means are used by listing essential driving competencies without mandating specific lesson structures or instructional techniques; duplication is avoided by referencing statutory safety concepts rather than repeating statutory language; the rule is easy to comprehend through use of structured lists of required driving skills and conditions; and enforcement is practicable because the enumerated instructional elements provide clear, observable criteria for compliance inspections. 140 IAC 4-4-1.3 establishes essential safety and operational requirements for vehicles used in behind-the-wheel driver training. It requires each vehicle to be properly registered, to be no more than ten model years old, and to include critical safety equipment such as dual brake controls, inside and outside rearview mirrors, and seat belts. It further mandates visible driver-training vehicle markings and requires that vehicles be maintained in a safe mechanical condition. These standards ensure that students operate only safe and appropriately equipped vehicles, supporting the overall safety and integrity of driver education programs. The rule meets the criteria in IC 4-22-2-19.5 because it imposes only the minimum necessary safety requirements; it is clearly drafted and easily enforceable; it avoids duplication because vehicle safety standards for training cars are not governed by federal law; and it achieves public safety goals in the least restrictive manner. The requirement that vehicles carry both a completed inspection form and insurance and registration documentation ensures transparency and verifiability without imposing unreasonable burdens. This rule establishes the minimum instructional hours for driver education (30 hours of theoretical training and 6 hours of behind-the-wheel training) and prescribes required timelines, attendance limits, and mechanisms for notifying the Bureau in cases of student non-completion. These standards ensure uniformity and rigor across driver education programs and preserve the public safety objectives inherent in licensing inexperienced drivers. The rule further specifies attendance limits of no more than three hours of theoretical training or two hours of behind-the-wheel training in a single day, preventing fatigue and ensuring instructional quality. It also outlines conditions for transferring training between licensed schools and requires that behind-the-wheel training be completed within 180 days of registration. If a student fails to attend or complete the required hours, the school must notify the Bureau, which will expire the learner's permit for students under age 16. These provisions are essential to ensure safe, consistent instruction and prevent students from advancing without adequate training. The rule satisfies IC 4-22-2-19.5 because it minimizes expenses by imposing only essential attendance and completion requirements; uses the least restrictive means by allowing reasonable daily limits and flexible transfer provisions; avoids duplicating statutory standards by referencing existing requirements under IC 9-27-6 instead of restating them; is written for ease of comprehension through clear, structured subsections; and supports practicable enforcement because its objective hour thresholds, notification timelines, and permit-expiration triggers give the Bureau straightforward criteria to verify compliance. 140 IAC 4-4-7 establishes the fundamental performance standard for all driver education students: they must receive a passing grade in both theoretical (classroom or online) training and behind-the-wheel instruction in order to successfully complete the course and qualify for a driving skills test waiver. This requirement ensures that students demonstrate sufficient understanding of the theoretical content and practical mastery of essential driving skills before advancing toward licensure. The rule supports public safety by ensuring that the issuance of a driving skills test waiver is reserved only for those who have demonstrated competency across all instructional areas. Without such a mandatory passing-grade requirement, schools could certify completion without adequate student mastery, undermining the value and reliability of driver education. The rule meets the criteria under IC 4-22-2-19.5 because it minimizes expenses by requiring only that students earn passing grades in theoretical and behind-the-wheel training, without mandating additional assessments or materials; achieves the regulatory goal in the least restrictive manner by linking eligibility for the driving-skills-test waiver solely to successful completion of the course; avoids duplicating statutory content by relying on IC 9-24-10-4 and IC 9-27-6-11 rather than repeating their provisions; is written for ease of comprehension as a concise, direct statement of the grading requirement; and supports practicable enforcement because the pass/fail condition is easy for schools and the bureau to document and verify. 140 IAC 4-5-1 provides a graduated structure for testing requirements based on how long an applicant's prior Indiana license has been expired. The rule ensures that applicants whose knowledge or driving skills may have diminished over time demonstrate adequate competency before resuming driving privileges. The rule's tiered requirements maintain strong alignment with public safety needs. Expirations of no more than 180 days require only a vision screening. Expirations of more than 180 days but not more than 3 years require a vision screening and a written examination. Expirations of more than 5 years require a vision screening, written examination, and a driving skills test. This structure ensures proportionality: the longer the lapse in licensure, the greater the likelihood that knowledge and skills may need reassessment. The rule avoids duplication with federal law, which does not regulate state driver's license expirations or retesting requirements. The rule also minimizes expenses by requiring only the statutory eyesight, written, and skills examinations based on how long a license has been expired and supports practicable enforcement because the Bureau can easily verify the expiration period and apply the correct examination requirements. The standards are clearly written, easy to enforce, and tailored to minimize burden while achieving regulatory goals, fulfilling IC 4-22-2-19.5. The continued need for the rule is strong, as safely reinstating lapsed drivers is foundational to BMV's licensing mission and to roadway safety. Without this rule, the BMV would lack explicit, enforceable guidelines ensuring competency after extended periods of non-driving. 140 IAC 4-5-2 establishes a structured, risk-based approach for determining what examinations are necessary when a previously licensed driver from another state seeks an Indiana license after allowing the prior license to expire. This rule recognizes that the length of expiration and the applicant's previous licensure history directly correlate to the need for reassessing driving knowledge and skills. The rule provides a graduated system: If the applicant held an unrevoked out-of-state license for at least one year and the license expired not more than three years before the Indiana application, the applicant must pass a vision exam and written exam; If the applicant held an unrevoked license for less than one year, or if the out-of-state license expired more than five years before application, the applicant must pass a vision exam, written exam, and driving skills exam. This structure ensures that applicants whose driving qualifications may reasonably be presumed intact face minimal burden, while those whose skill or knowledge may have lapsed more significantly undergo the full assessment necessary to safeguard public safety. The rule reflects IC 4-22-2-19.5 by: minimizing expenses by requiring only the standard eyesight, written, and skills examinations already used for licensing; using the least restrictive means by setting tiered requirements that avoid unnecessary testing when an applicant has recent driving experience; avoiding duplication of statutory standards by relying on IC 9-24-10-4 rather than re-codifying testing rules; being written for ease of comprehension through a simple, logical two-tier structure; and supporting practicable enforcement because the bureau can readily confirm expiration dates and prior licensure, ensuring consistent application of the rule. This section governs the lifecycle of a salvage motor vehicle from the point of acquisition through restoration, sale, and eventual retitling. Because salvage vehicles carry heightened fraud, safety, and consumer-protection risks, the rule establishes essential procedural guardrails. The rule requires that anyone acquiring a salvage vehicle manufactured within the prior seven model years apply for a salvage title. It allows, but does not require, a restorer to obtain a rebuilt title before selling the vehicle; however, if sold while still titled as salvage, the seller must provide the buyer both the salvage title and an affidavit of restoration. The rule also prohibits registration of any such vehicle until a rebuilt title is obtained. These provisions are crucial in ensuring transparency in the resale market, verifying that restored vehicles meet statutory criteria, and preventing unsafe vehicles from returning to the road without proper oversight. The rule satisfies the statutory standards of IC 4-22-2-19.5 because it is clear, enforceable, narrowly tailored to its public safety purpose, and does not duplicate any federal requirements. Expenses are minimized by requiring only the basic statutory steps for obtaining salvage and rebuilt titles; achieves the regulatory goal in the least restrictive manner by allowing rebuilt vehicles to be sold without first obtaining a rebuilt title so long as the seller provides the salvage title and an affidavit of restoration; avoids duplicating state law by referencing existing title, salvage, and registration provisions instead of repeating them; is written for ease of comprehension through its clear four-part structure; and supports practicable enforcement because its objective conditions provide the bureau with straightforward, verifiable compliance criteria. This rule serves an essential function, ensuring that individuals with certain medical conditions that may mimic intoxication are evaluated through a physician's certification process before they may be issued a driver's license. The rule specifies that the required certificate must be obtained within 30 days prior to application. The requirement aligns closely with public safety objectives by ensuring that applicants whose physical presentation may be misunderstood as intoxication are assessed by a qualified medical provider. This mitigates risks associated with undiagnosed or uncontrolled medical impairments that could affect driving. It satisfies IC 4-22-2-19.5 because it minimizes expenses by requiring only a physician's certificate obtained within thirty days of the driver's license application; achieves the regulatory goal in the least restrictive manner by simply ensuring timely medical documentation for individuals whose conditions may appear as intoxication; avoids duplicating statutory content by referencing IC 9-24-11-9 rather than reiterating its requirements; is written for ease of comprehension through a single clear sentence specifying the requirements; and supports practicable enforcement because the Bureau can easily verify whether the physician's certificate is current and issue or deny the credential accordingly. No alternative regulatory mechanism would provide the Bureau an equally reliable method to confirm medical fitness for individuals whose appearance may raise safety concerns. Without the rule, the BMV would be unable to appropriately evaluate these cases in a consistent and medically informed manner. 140 IAC 7-1.2-1 establishes the circumstances in which the BMV may issue an interim credential to an applicant who has met all licensing requirements but cannot be issued a permanent form of identification at the time of the transaction. These circumstances include system outages, the need for fraud investigation or identity verification, delays created by external data sources, out-of-state travel that prevents timely renewal, and situations involving long-expired licenses that require completion of a skills test. These controls maintain both safety and administrative flexibility. The rule remains necessary because interim credentials ensure continuity of lawful driving privileges during short-term disruptions, administrative delays, or special circumstances that otherwise prevent the issuance of a standard physical or digital credential. The rule satisfies the factors in IC 4-22-2-19.5 because it minimizes expenses by authorizing interim licenses only when necessary; uses the least restrictive means by allowing temporary credentials during defined circumstances without restricting applicants beyond what federal or state law already requires; avoids duplicating statutory provisions by incorporating IC 9-24 and referencing federal systems where relevant rather than restating their standards; is written for ease of comprehension in a clear list detailing each qualifying situation; and supports practicable enforcement because the Bureau can consistently apply these objective scenarios to determine when issuing an interim license is appropriate. This section establishes the fee structure applicable to motorcycle operational skills testing. It requires applicants to pay the lawful testing fee to the approved motorcycle examiner before the test and authorizes bureau-approved organizations that administer skills tests to charge reasonable fees to cover administrative costs, plus an additional $5 examiner fee. It further provides that certified motorcycle examiners who are not state employees may retain fees for services rendered. These provisions remain essential to maintain a stable, functional testing system that supports examiner compensation, ensures organizational cost recovery, and preserves the quality and availability of motorcycle skills testing services statewide. Without a clearly defined fee framework, the BMV would lack the ability to ensure uniformity across test sites, maintain market fairness, or guarantee that testing providers operate sustainably. The rule complies with IC 4-22-2-19.5 by because it minimizes expenses by allowing motorcycle examiners and approved organizations to charge only reasonable fees; achieves the regulatory goal in the least restrictive manner by simply requiring payment before the operational skills test without imposing any additional procedural burden on applicants; avoids duplicating statutory fee provisions by relying on the general authority under IC 9-14-8-3 rather than restating independent fee schedules; is written for ease of comprehension through its clear explanation of who may charge fees and what fee structure applies; and supports practicable enforcement because the rule establishes objective criteria that can be readily verified and enforced by the Bureau. The requirements found in 140 IAC 7-3-2 remain necessary to maintain a compliant and functional CDL program. The prohibition on holding more than one driver's license is consistent with federal CDL program standards and continues to serve essential safety and enforcement purposes by preventing duplicate or conflicting credentials and ensuring that each CDL holder's driving record is accurately consolidated. Likewise, the four-year expiration cycle provides predictability, supports consistent record-checking procedures, and aligns with the BMV's broader licensing operations. When evaluated against the standards in IC 4-22-2-19.5, the rule continues to satisfy the requirement that administrative rules minimize expenses and avoid unnecessary restrictions. The rule imposes no fees, requires no additional documentation, and sets out only two foundational conditions that the BMV must already enforce to comply with federal CDL requirements. There is no less restrictive alternative capable of meeting these safety and administrative objectives, and the language of the rule remains clear, brief, and readily enforceable. Because the rule is tightly drawn and narrowly scoped, it contains no duplicative provisions and requires only routine compliance efforts already expected of CDL holders. The rule continues to serve a critical function by establishing clear, objective standards for those responsible for administering CDL skills tests. Requiring examiners to meet defined age, licensure, experience, and training qualifications promotes both safety and the reliability of CDL testing. Because examiners directly evaluate whether applicants are competent to operate commercial motor vehicles, the standards in the rule support consistent evaluations and protect public safety. The rule also supports compliance with federally required examiner qualifications, and each requirement is directly tied to maintaining the competence and credibility of the CDL testing process. It also satisfies 4-22-2-19.5 because it minimizes expenses by requiring only essential qualifications for CDL skills test examiner certification without imposing costly or complex obligations; achieves the regulatory goal in the least restrictive manner by ensuring examiners meet baseline federal and state safety standards while allowing straightforward reapplication; avoids duplication by referencing incorporated federal requirements under 49 CFR 384.228 rather than repeating them within the rule; is written for ease of comprehension through its concise list of examiner qualifications and certification limits; and supports practicable enforcement because the Bureau can easily verify objective criteria like age, license class, training completion, and compliance with federal standards before granting or renewing certification. No reasonable less-restrictive alternative exists that would achieve the same level of safety and program integrity. CDL skills test examiner oversight remains essential to public safety. The rule ensures that individuals conducting CDL exams maintain professional conduct and integrity and are held accountable for serious misconduct, aligning with federal and state safety objectives. Without this regulatory framework, enforcement of examiner qualifications, accountability for misconduct, and revocation authority would be hampered. This rule is crucial for maintaining public safety and preserving the integrity of the CDL testing process. The rule draws authority from Indiana Code sections IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-24-6.1-2, and it operates in harmony with procedural safeguards in the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (IC 4-21.5), which permits the Bureau to immediately suspend an examiner pending a formal hearing. The rule minimizes expenses because it imposes no fees on test examiners, applicants, or the public, and does not require new expenditures by the Bureau beyond existing administrative costs. It also achieves its regulatory goal in the least restrictive manner by limiting disciplinary measures to certification suspension or revocation and relying on due process procedures under IC 4-21.5. The rule avoids duplication; federal regulations in 49 CFR Part 383 and state statutes govern examiner conduct and qualifications, while 140 IAC 7-3-14 supports targeted state-level enforcement without additional redundant requirements. The rule is readily comprehensible, clearly outlining the grounds and procedures for disciplinary action (removal or suspension of approval) with defined notice and hearing steps. Lastly, enforcement is practicable; the Bureau employs established administrative processes, including immediate suspension authority under IC 4-21.5-4, ensuring timely action when examiners pose a safety risk. These elements demonstrate compliance with IC 4-22-2-19.5 standards and highlight the rule's necessity. The rule ensures that the Bureau remains promptly informed when a CDL holder is convicted under state or local traffic laws, thereby protecting public safety and regulatory integrity. An analysis under IC 4-22-2-19.5 confirms the rule remains justified. It minimizes expenses because it does not impose fees or require additional expenditures by drivers, employers, or the Bureau; the notification process utilizes existing record systems. It employs the least restrictive means by requiring only timely notification from the CDL holder without imposing penalties; enforcement procedures align with statutory authority. It avoids duplication because the rule mirrors federal obligations under 49 CFR 383.31 but allows the State to meet federal standards without layering additional requirements, as well as more directly permit state-level enforcement. It is written clearly as the rule directly states that a CDL holder must notify both the Bureau and employer of any qualifying conviction, making compliance straightforward and understandable. Lastly, it is practicable to enforce since notifications reflect obligatory processes already required under federal law, the Bureau can monitor and verify compliance using established data transmission channels. Therefore, this shows the rule continues to satisfy each statutory standard and remains necessary to maintain a safe and fully informed regulatory environment. 140 IAC 7-6-1 ensures public safety by providing authorized personnel such as coroners and law enforcement with access to emergency contact information in critical situations. This fulfills a vital public interest and aligns with Indiana law. Reviewing the rule against the five standards under IC 4-22-2-19.5: It fosters cost minimization by requiring no fees or additional spending by credential holders, the Bureau, or other stakeholders. Instead, the database operates using existing administrative infrastructure. It achieves its objective in the least restrictive way, allowing individuals to enter or update up to two emergency contacts without more intrusive data collection. It avoids duplication, as the relevant statutory authorization in IC 9-26-10 mandates this functionality and instructs the bureau to adopt rules in compliance with that authority; 140 IAC 7-6-1 simply adheres to that requirement and implements it at the administrative level. It is clearly written, specifying what information is required (legal name and phone number), the maximum number of contacts, who can access the information, and under what circumstances. It is practicable to enforce: the Bureau integrates the contact input process into standard credentialing workflows, and authorized entities access the database electronically as needed. This rule is essential to ensure that payment obligations to the Bureau are fulfilled, preserving public trust and maintaining the operating capacity of licensing systems. Under IC 4-22-2-19.5, the rule minimizes expenses because it imposes only necessary administrative fees, authorized by IC 35-43-5, to recover costs associated with dishonored payments. Users can avoid suspension by timely resolving repayment obligations. The rule also uses the least restrictive means by allowing reinstatement through full payment plus a modest ten-dollar fee, rather than implementing harsher penalties. The Bureau may also waive fees when dishonor is caused by bank error, safeguarding fairness. The rule avoids duplication since it builds on statutory fee authority without layering new obligations; the rule operationalizes existing law within the Bureau's processes. The rule is written clearly, outlining step-by-step procedures from file creation through suspension, notification, payment, reinstatement, and waiver options. Regulated parties can easily understand their responsibilities. Lastly, enforcement is practicable as the Bureau can automate notices and monitor collections within its systems. Immediate suspension authority ensures compliance, while reinstatement procedures restore privileges promptly when obligations are met. By meeting these standards, the rule remains both necessary and appropriately targeted to ensure compliance and recover dues without undue burden. This rule ensures orderly administration of driver license testing by establishing waiting periods between failed attempts. It reflects essential procedural requirements and enhances operational efficiency and fairness, satisfying each standard of IC 4-22-2-19.5: The rule minimizes expenses because it does not impose fees or additional costs on test applicants, providers, or the Bureau. Applicants simply reschedule failed exams within the defined waiting period with no financial burden. It uses the least restrictive means: the requirement to wait until the next calendar day for knowledge exams and wait seven to fourteen days for skills tests constitutes a reasonable limitation intended to promote preparation and reduce administrative strain. It avoids duplication; no federal or state statute mandates these exact waiting periods, so the rule fills a necessary procedural gap without layering redundant requirements. It is written for ease of comprehension; the text explicitly limits retakes to one per day for knowledge exams and a minimum seven-day delay before a skills exam retake, with a fourteen-day maximum interval only at the discretion of the Bureau. These provisions are clear and unambiguous. Enforcement is practicable, as branch staff routinely monitor exam attempts and impediments through standard scheduling systems and enforcement protocols. The rule aligns with the Bureau's existing operational infrastructure, maintaining test integrity and resource management. Indiana requires uniform motorboat identification for enforcement, safety, and data tracking. 140 IAC 9-4-1 defines a clear, consistent three-part format beginning with "IN," followed by four numerals, and concluding with two letters (excluding I, O, and Q). Applying IC 4-22-2-19.5, the rule imposes no fees or extra costs as applicants receive designation as part of a standard registration process. The rule also adopts the least restrictive approach by mandating only a simple standardized numbering format rather than more detailed or burdensome ID systems. The rule avoids duplication by supplementing the federal requirement to display registration (per 33 CFR 173.27) with a uniquely formatted state identifier that facilitates clear record linkage. The rule is readily understandable because the text plainly states the required character groups and prohibited letters, allowing registrants and staff to apply the rule without interpretation difficulty. Lastly, enforcement is practicable; numbering generation and verification integrate into electronic registration systems, and physical display compliance aligns with federal standards. These factors collectively affirm that the rule remains necessary and appropriately tailored to serve public safety and regulatory uniformity. 140 IAC 9-4-2.5 requires that the registration number assigned to a motorboat be displayed in the manner specified in federal regulation 33 CFR 173.27. Incorporation of federal display requirements ensures consistency in enforcement and identification of watercraft across jurisdictions. This consistency remains necessary for accurate field identification by conservation officers, police officers, and other regulatory bodies. Under IC 4-22-2-19.5, the rule satisfies the required standards. It minimizes expenses because it imposes no fees and requires no additional state-mandated equipment beyond the registration numbers that boat owners already receive through routine registration processes. It achieves its regulatory goals in the least restrictive manner because it relies on a pre-existing federal standard rather than creating a separate Indiana-specific display method, thereby reducing duplication and compliance burden. It avoids duplicating state or federal standards by explicitly incorporating 33 CFR 173.27 instead of restating it or imposing conflicting requirements. It is written in simple, direct terms, stating only that the number must be displayed in accordance with the federal regulation, making it easy for stakeholders to understand. It has practicable enforcement, as the Bureau and relevant law enforcement agencies already use federal display standards in their field operations and can verify compliance at a glance. The purpose of 140 IAC 9-4-6.5 is to prevent conflicting registrations between Indiana and other states and to ensure accuracy of motorboat registration records. The rule authorizes the Bureau to cancel an Indiana registration upon receiving notice from another state that the motorboat is registered there and requires the registrant to surrender the canceled certificate. It also clarifies that cancellation does not determine ownership. These provisions remain necessary to maintain proper record control, avoid duplicate registrations, and ensure legal clarity. The rule satisfies each of the five standards in IC 4-22-2-19.5. It minimizes expenses because it does not establish fees or impose monetary obligations beyond compliance with standard registration procedures. It achieves its regulatory goal in the least restrictive manner by using straightforward cancellation authority tied to notification from another state rather than mandating investigations, audits, or additional documentation. It avoids duplication because there are no conflicting state or federal requirements governing cross-state watercraft registration conflicts; instead, the rule complements IC 9-18.1-14.5 by specifying a procedure for handling multistate registrations. It is written clearly, with simple statements outlining when a registration may be canceled, what must be surrendered, and what legal effect the cancellation has. It has practicable enforcement, as the Bureau already receives interstate registration data and can act upon such notifications without additional procedural mechanisms.

III. Analysis of fees, fines, and civil penalties under IC 4-22-2-19.6

This section does not involve any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not involve any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not impose any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not impose any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section imposes no fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not include any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not impose fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not impose any fees, fines, or penalties. This section does not impose any fee, fine, or penalty. This section does not impose any fines, fees, or civil penalties. This section does not impose any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not impose fees, fines, or penalties. This section does not impose fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not impose any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not set any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not establish fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not set any fines, fees, or civil penalties. This section does not set any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not impose fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not impose or authorize any fees, fines, or civil penalties. 140 IAC 4-1.4-1 establishes fees but does not impose fines or civil penalties. Instructor initial or renewal license applications are set at $10 each, with a $5 fee for amendments or replacements. Driver training school applications and renewals are $100 per location, with amendments or replacements charged at $20. Schools maintained by public school corporations or state educational entities are exempt from training school licensing fees. Also, if an application is denied and resubmitted within 60 days, the fees are waived. These fees are necessary to help alleviate any administrative burden the BMV must bear in overseeing this program. These specific fee prices were calculated to be the smallest amount necessary to offset any cost of audits, inspections, administrative overhead, or other associated expenses. The amount of these fees is also reasonable and not burdensome to the contractors that bear the cost given the significantly higher price of each course these contractors offer. This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. No fees, fines, or civil penalties are established in this section. This section does not impose fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not establish any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not create fees, fines, or civil penalties. None of these sections impose or authorize fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not create or authorize fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not impose or authorize fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section establishes no fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section contains no fee, fine, or civil penalty provisions. This section imposes no fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not impose any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not impose fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section expressly establishes fees for motorcycle operational skills tests. It does not impose fines or civil penalties. The purpose of the fee is to support the cost of test administration, including examiner services and organizational overhead. The fee is charged only when an applicant sits for a motorcycle operational skills test. The regulation limits fees to those necessary to cover reasonable administrative costs and a flat $5 examiner fee. This ensures fees correlate directly to service provision rather than serving punitive or revenue-raising purposes. The fee is not intended to penalize applicants but to fund essential testing services. The fee is collected by the Bureau approved organization administering the test. This section contains no fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not contain or authorize any fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not establish fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section establishes no fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section contains no provisions for fees, penalties, or fines. This section does not impose punitive fines or civil penalties. Fees are limited to recovery of costs associated with dishonored payments and a $10 reinstatement charge. These fees are only levied in the event a person's payment is rejected. These fees are purely administrative in nature and cover the costs associated with monitoring and collecting these fees. This fee amount was chosen to align with IC 6-6-5-12, which required the Bureau to take possession of any registration certificate for any vehicle registered without payment of excise taxes until the owner paid the taxes, plus a $10 fee to compensate the Bureau for "the additional duties performed by it." IC 6-6-5-12 was repealed in 2017, but the Bureau has maintained the fee in this rule pursuant to its rulemaking authority. No fees, fines, or civil penalties are associated with this section. This section prescribes no fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section imposes no fees, fines, or civil penalties. This section does not establish or authorize any fines, fees, or civil penalties.

IV. Cost-Benefit, Economic Impact, Fiscal Impact, or Regulatory Burden Statements

There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being added to 140 IAC 1-2. The proposed readoption continues to impose no costs on small businesses or individuals and continues to have minimal fiscal impact on state and local government. Similarly, fiscal impact on the BMV remains minimal. The rule establishes internal time limits for BMV action and does not require regulated entities to undertake any compliance-related activities. While there have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes administrative duties on applicants, such as completing forms, supplying vehicle and administrator details, affidavits, and monthly updates where appropriate. These requirements provide little to no economic impact or cost on regulated entities, individuals, state or local governments, or the BMV. The rule itself consists of two primary components: (1) a deadline of 30 days and (2) what needs to be provided by that deadline. A deadline is a procedural requirement that has no inherent cost for any party. The requirements of that deadline merely consist of a list of basic identification items, such as names and addresses of individuals to be insured, the vehicles to be insured, and an affirmation by the administrator that their duties will be conducted. Each of these items are documents likely already maintained by any regulated entity as they represent the most basic documentation. As such, this imposes virtually no cost or burden. Similarly, state and local governments and entities are accustomed to and have established channels for receiving documents from individuals and entities. Therefore, the economic cost of this rule is effectively zero. When these minimal costs are compared relative to the benefits of ensuring financial responsibility, the cost-benefit analysis is extremely favorable. While the BMV has found no significant economic impact, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published December 14, 2016, under LSA #16-492 concerning the proposed readoption being amended to increase the collateral requirements to be consistent with statutory requirements under IC 9-25-4-10. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-7-3 poses no economic impact to small businesses. Small businesses are typically not self-insurers; applicants are generally large fleet operators with capacity to meet financial thresholds. The rule's collateral requirements impose financial obligations on applicants, but these obligations arise directly from the statutory framework governing self-insurance. The rule does not impose costs beyond what is necessary to ensure an adequate financial cushion for claims. If an individual was an applicant, the rule merely requires they have the financial backing that is already required of that in statute. As such, the economic impact is minimal. This readoption also maintains minimal fiscal impact on state and local governments. Any administrative upkeep in maintaining or auditing compliance with this rule is already in place due to the statutory requirements. The agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes obligations only on approved self-insurers who have already demonstrated capacity to post substantial collateral. Requiring replacement of withdrawn collateral within seventy-two hours ensures a continuous financial buffer but does not impose new or unexpected economic burdens as this would already be expected of any collateral. The only difference in obligations this makes is a deadline of 72 hours, which is not inherently more costly than having no deadline. Similarly, allowing the BMV via this rule to pay outstanding legal obligations from posted collateral only imposes minor administrative burden to the BMV and no extra burden to regulated entities, as the collateral used for this was already provided by those entities for this very situation. These requirements provide little to no economic impact or cost on regulated entities, individuals, state or local governments, or the BMV. The rule generates benefits, such as the payment of judgments and stability of the self-insurance program, without imposing costs beyond the inherent statutory requirements. While there is no information to show this analysis has changed or needs to be altered from the original findings, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule has two primary components: (1) administrators send a schedule of claims annually and (2) additional collateral may be required based on that schedule. These requirements provide little to no economic impact or cost on regulated entities, individuals, state or local governments, or the BMV. The first component, which requires sending a schedule of claims for the year, is a minor administrative burden to all parties involved. For the insurer, that information is likely already being tracked and sending it along with their application for renewal is a minimal burden. The same is true for the BMV, as they already have channels to receive documents and are already handling applications on a yearly basis. With regards to the second component, which allows the collateral requirements to be raised based upon the schedule of claims received, may increase collateral requirements for self-insurers after high claim activity, but those costs are justified by elevated risk exposure. Applicants are typically well-resourced entities; the rule imposes no new reporting or procedural costs. The benefits of additional financial protection for claimants outweigh minimal economic burdens. When these minimal costs are compared relative to the benefits of ensuring financial responsibility, the cost-benefit analysis is extremely favorable. While no changes in impact warrant revision of prior assessments, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The administrative fee associated with providing forms shifts costs to self-insurers who use the service and ensures no general fund impact. These fees are proportional to actual administrative costs and do not impose any undue burden. Self-insurers are typically commercial entities for whom these fees represent nominal expenses, but even if it was a small non-commercial entity providing the service, the costs of issuing insurance certificates to members is exceptionally small, especially when compared against the significant cost of self-insurance. Furthermore, this rule imposes no costs on state or local governments. The benefits of standardization, cost recovery, and documentation clarity outweigh any minimal cost. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. Implementation of cancellation procedures involves administrative tasks such as reviewing applications, legal notices, and hearings. These are routine functions already integral to program oversight, and as such have no additional cost for state or local governments, or any other entities. In addition, the cost of administering hearings or notices is minimal relative to the benefits of protecting the public and ensuring financial responsibility compliance. While no increased burden on regulated entities has been identified and previous impact findings remain valid, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no direct cost to individuals or businesses. It supports administrative efficiency by reducing the need for case-by-case legal analysis. Existing fiscal assessments remain accurate, with no burden on small entities. In addition, there is no information to show any burden on local or state governments as the rule has no inherent cost. The rule merely formalizes grounds for suspension or revocation. While the rule continues to have no fiscal impact, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no direct cost to individuals or businesses, as the rule only directs the actions of the BMV. The cost to the BMV is primarily administrative, such as printing and mailing notices and processing review requests. These costs are minimal and inherent to due process. The BMV already has established channels to conduct these tasks, and as such there is minimal burden and no fiscal impact from this rule. The rule prevents administrative inefficiencies and potential legal exposure, affirming that benefits outweigh minimal costs. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no direct cost to individuals or businesses. Administrative hearings involve internal BMV operations, such as notice generation, record review, and scheduling. Costs on state or local governments are minimal, especially relative to maintaining procedural integrity and preventing potential litigation. No economic burden is placed on the public or regulated parties. The benefits of legal compliance and decision consistency far outweigh the administrative costs. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The administrative review process requires internal staff time for processing requests and reviewing documentation but imposes no direct costs on individuals or businesses. Administrative hearings involve internal BMV operations, such as notice generation, record review, and scheduling. Costs on state or local governments are minimal, especially relative to maintaining procedural integrity and preventing potential litigation. No economic burden is placed on the public or regulated parties. The benefits of legal compliance and decision consistency far outweigh the administrative costs. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. This rule was not mentioned in the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA # 21-460 when the proposed rule was originally adopted. The rule imposes no costs on individuals or small businesses. In addition, it has no economic impact on small businesses. The only requirements of the rule are to set forth an appeal that identifies the error and include any documentation supporting this claim. Neither of these requirements bear any inherent cost. For the BMV, administrative tasks involve reviewing written requests and supporting documentation, thus making the only cost administrative in nature and virtually impossible to measure due to their negligible size. The rule encourages rectification of records before judicial review is needed, thereby reducing court costs and litigation. The benefits outweigh the miniscule administrative costs. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule incurs no additional annual administrative, reporting, or record keeping costs for the Bureau and imposes no economic impact on small businesses. Requiring plate replacement every ten years may impose modest costs on vehicle owners but extends the usable life of license plates significantly beyond replacement based on condition alone. Allowing flexibility for specialty plates balances stakeholder interests. Overall, administrative efficiency and uniformity justify any minimal cost, and no disproportionate burden falls on small businesses or individuals. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule does not impose any cost or burden on individuals, small businesses, or state and local governments. Instead, it benefits the regulated community and agency by providing shared language foundational to compliance and enforcement. While no prior fiscal or economic assessments need revision, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. Completing the application and renewal processes involves staff time and submission costs for schools. However, these entities are typically trained professionals, and the requirements are standard for regulated education providers. The benefits of ensuring safe, qualified instruction and regulatory oversight far outweigh the minimal administrative costs. No undue burden on small businesses or individuals has been identified. In addition, the Bureau already has established channels for the granting or review of licensure. As such, only minimal administrative costs are incurred by state and local governments. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. No revisions to prior analyses are required. Existing economic and regulatory burden considerations remain accurate, and the rule does not introduce new costs. The rule imposes no direct cost to individuals or businesses. It supports administrative efficiency by ensuring all driver schools follow the same rules of operation. In addition, there is no information to show any burden on local or state governments as the rule has no inherent cost. The rule merely formalizes driver training school operations. While the rule continues to have no fiscal impact, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no measurable economic impact. Schools, students, and online providers maintain their ordinary course of operation. The disclosure requirement and curriculum-approval processes impose negligible administrative burden. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The economic impact of the requirements is minimal and consistent with administrative processes typical of professional licensing. There are no costs for small businesses as a result of this rule. Applicants incur customary costs for fingerprinting, background checks, physician evaluation, and document submission. While no new costs have arisen since prior readoption and the existing fiscal assessments remain applicable, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The requirements established in 140 IAC 4-1.3-2 impose no new economic or regulatory burden. Instructors are already licensed professionals whose compliance with conduct and documentation standards is consistent with longstanding expectations within the driver education industry. The obligations are behavioral rather than financial, and no additional fiscal impacts have emerged since the rule was last reviewed. The rule imposes no cost on individuals and has no fiscal impact on state or local governments. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no costs on individuals or small businesses. The rule does not introduce new costs for program providers beyond routine preparation and submission of curriculum materials, which is minimal. Program approval cycles occur every four years and align with common accreditation practices in education. The Bureau already has established channels for receiving and approving documentation, so there is no additional cost. While no negative fiscal or economic impacts have been identified and previously issued burden determinations remain unchanged, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. 140 IAC 4-1.4-1 establishes fees but does not impose fines or civil penalties. Instructor initial or renewal license applications are set at $10 each, with a $5 fee for amendments or replacements. Driver training school applications and renewals are $100 per location, with amendments or replacements charged at $20. Schools maintained by public school corporations or state educational entities are exempt from training school licensing fees. Also, if an application is denied and resubmitted within 60 days, the fees are waived. These fees are necessary to help alleviate any administrative burden the BMV must bear in overseeing this program. Any cost of audits, inspections, or other associated expenses are offset by these annual fees. The amount of these fees is also reasonable and not burdensome to the contractors that bear the cost given the significantly higher price of each course these contractors offer. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. Because this section does not introduce new financial obligations, its economic impact remains minimal. For state and local governments, the only cost is administrative, amounting to the cost of a first class mail notification to an offending school or instructor. For small businesses, the costs are zero, with potential costs only arising with noncompliance. Small businesses properly maintaining their standards will have no economic impact from this rule. The rule imposes procedural obligations solely in response to noncompliance, which supports public safety without creating ongoing burden for licensees. Individuals have no costs from this rule. While the existing burden assessments remain sufficient, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. Maintaining insurance coverage is a standard business expense. Although the rule imposes a cost, it aligns with industry norms and serves the public interest. This rule imposes no costs on individuals and only the base administrative costs to state and local agencies required for them to receive school insurance compliance documents, which is minimal. This requirement does not introduce new financial obligations. As such, there is no economic impact to small businesses, individuals, or state or local governments from this rule. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. Maintaining and providing access to two years of training records constitutes a minor administrative cost and one that schools would likely already be performing as a regular administrative obligation within the training industry. No additional costs arise for small businesses or state and local governments beyond routine recordkeeping and compliance. There are no costs to individuals as a result of this rule. The minor administrative cost is worth the benefit of ensuring schools maintain compliance with Indiana laws and rules. The rule serves a valid and important public interest at a minimal cost. While the previously issued economic impact statement remains accurate and applicable, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. Because this section only provides access to statutory hearings and does not impose additional administrative or fiscal obligations, it does not introduce regulatory burden or any fiscal impact on state or local governments. There is no economic impact on small businesses or individuals. The associated costs are limited to standard administrative hearing procedures, which are already incorporated into BMV operations. No new economic impact arises from this rule. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The regulation itself imposes minimal administrative costs on applicants, limited to completing a waiver form. The only requirement to receive this waiver is for the individual to meet certain requirements. These requirements would already exist and would not be something an individual strives to achieve. The rule has no interaction with small businesses. As such, it has no economic impact on individuals or small businesses. In addition, the receiving and processing of administrative forms is an obligation already undertaken by the Bureau. Therefore, there is no fiscal impact on state or local governments. Because applications are sporadic and context-specific, the rule does not create ongoing regulatory burden. Ensuring individuals in hardship situations have the ability to obtain a license in order to maintain their or their family's wellbeing is worth the minor administrative cost of this rule. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. For 4-1, There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being amended. Because this rule solely clarifies applicability, it imposes no direct cost or regulatory burden. Schools and examiners are already regulated under related provisions, and this section creates no incremental administrative impact. There is no economic impact on individuals or small businesses, and no fiscal impact on state or local governments. For 4-1.1, there have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The requirement imposes no additional financial cost, as driver education classes inherently include theoretical instruction. Schools already develop curricula that include the enumerated topics, so the rule's impact is minimal and aligned with standard operational practice. There is no cost or economic impact on individuals or small businesses as a result of this rule, nor is there a fiscal impact on state or local governments. Existing regulatory burden analyses remain accurate. For 4-1.2, there have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. This behind-the-wheel training is integral to driver education, and schools already account for practical instruction in their business model. As such, the rule imposes zero additional cost beyond existing operational plans. There is no economic impact on individuals or small businesses and no fiscal impact on state and local governments. Prior impact assessments remain valid. For 4-1.3, there have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The requirements contained in 4-4-1.3 reflect standard industry practice for behind-the-wheel training vehicles and therefore impose no significant new cost or regulatory burden. Most driver training schools already utilize vehicles with dual controls, appropriate mirrors, and required safety equipment. The rule's requirement that vehicles be under ten years old promotes mechanical reliability and aligns with consumer expectations of safety. The rule does not mandate enhanced technology or specialized certification procedures. As such, the economic impact to small businesses and individuals is minimal or zero. The fiscal impact to state or local governments is zero. Previously issued burden analyses remain accurate and require no revision. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis for these sections under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The instructional hour minimums and attendance limits reflect longstanding national driver education standards and thus impose no additional costs beyond normal course operations. Schools already structure their programs around these requirements, and administrative tasks such as notifying the Bureau of non-completion are routine and minimal. As such, the rule imposes no cost or economic burden on individuals or small businesses. There is also no fiscal impact on state or local governments. While no new economic, fiscal, or regulatory burdens have arisen since the last readoption cycle, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no costs on individuals and no fiscal impact on state or local governments. The rule does not impose economic or administrative burden on schools beyond the ordinary instructional evaluations already inherent in any education program. Schools already grade students in both theoretical and practical components. The benefit of ensuring that only competent students qualify for a waiver far outweighs any nominal administrative steps required. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no economic burden on small businesses. The rule also has no fiscal impact on state or local governments as the rule imposes minimal regulatory burden. Vision screenings, written tests, and skills tests are standard components of driver licensing and are already integrated into BMV operations. The costs to applicants are limited to time and minimal testing fees already prescribed by statute. The benefit of ensuring applicants remain competent to drive substantially outweighs any burden. While no changes since prior readoption alter the economic impact, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no economic burden on small businesses and no fiscal impact on state or local governments. The economic burden of the rule on individuals is minimal and consistent with standard licensing procedures. The required exams are integral components of driver licensing and do not impose additional costs beyond existing, generally applicable examination fees. The benefit of ensuring that formerly licensed drivers from other jurisdictions meet Indiana's safety standards significantly outweighs any minor administrative burden. No new operational costs or regulatory burdens have emerged since the last readoption. The rule continues to function efficiently within existing BMV testing infrastructure. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. The rule does not impose any cost or economic impact on small businesses. The rule imposes only minimal burden on regulated parties. Requiring an application for a salvage title and, later, a rebuilt title imposes routine administrative costs that vehicle rebuilders already incorporate into their operations. The requirement that sellers provide an affidavit of restoration when transferring a salvage-titled vehicle is a low-cost means of ensuring transparency. The prohibition on registering a vehicle without a rebuilt title is an essential safety measure with no unnecessary regulatory cost. As such, the cost burden on individuals is minimal. There is no fiscal impact on state or local governments, as the only costs are minimal and administrative in nature. The benefits of accurate titling, consumer protection, and ensuring vehicles meet safety criteria far outweigh the modest compliance obligations. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule has no economic impact on small businesses. The rule imposes minimal administrative or financial burden on applicants and the Bureau. Applicants are required only to obtain a physician's certificate within the 30-day timeframe, a routine task in medical verification processes. The Bureau already has established channels to receive and verify medical documentation, so the administrative cost is minimal. The benefit to public safety by ensuring medically appropriate licensing outcomes far outweighs this nominal requirement. While no revisions to prior cost-benefit assessments are necessary, the agency has completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule has no economic impact on small businesses. The rule imposes no cost or economic impact on individuals. Cost to the Bureau is minimal and only administrative in nature. Interim credentialing avoids significant economic impact by preventing lapses in driving privileges that may disrupt employment, travel, or personal obligations. That benefit far outweighs the minor administrative cost associated with adhering to this rule. Because the rule applies only in limited circumstances and uses existing licensing systems, fiscal impact is minimal and beneficial by preserving continuity of service. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule has no economic impact on small businesses and minimal fiscal impact on state or local governments. The rule produces a favorable cost-benefit outcome. Applicants incur modest testing fees, but in exchange gain access to standardized, well-administered, statewide motorcycle skills testing. For examiners and organizations, the rule provides predictable revenue needed to cover operational expenses. The fiscal impact on the Bureau is minimal as test administration costs are assumed by private examiners and approved organizations. The rule imposes minimal regulatory burden. Fees are simple, transparent, and uniformly applied. No evidence suggests that the fee structure creates barriers to motorcycle licensure. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule has no economic impact on small businesses and minimal fiscal impact on state or local governments, limited to administrative costs. As a whole, the rule imposes minimal cost or regulatory impact. Neither requirement creates new compliance obligations beyond those already inherent in the commercial licensing system. The prohibition on multiple licenses restates a longstanding element of CDL administration, and the four-year expiration cycle does not impose additional costs on individuals or businesses beyond the customary renewal process. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes minimal economic impact because it pertains only to individuals seeking certification as CDL skills test examiners, a voluntary professional activity. The qualifications mirror the skills and credentials typically expected of experienced commercial drivers and do not impose disproportionate compliance costs. Because the rule requires only that examiners possess necessary experience, training, and licensure, it does not create meaningful fiscal or regulatory burdens for businesses or individuals. The rule has no fiscal impact on state or local governments. Ensuring CDL skills examiners are properly qualified and meet all federal requirements meets an important public safety need. These benefits outweigh the minor costs of the rule. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no costs on individuals and has no economic impact on small businesses. The only small businesses this rule impacts are CDL schools, and the only way for this rule to impact those businesses is the loss of an examiner due to that examiner's poor acts or false statements by the school. The only cost on the Bureau from this rule is administrative in nature. The rule does not impose new financial obligations and relies on existing Bureau frameworks for enforcement and hearings. The rule imposes no fee or direct economic burden on regulated entities, and oversight is intrinsic to agency execution of statutory responsibilities. The benefit of ensuring improper or unqualified examiners can be suspended quickly and efficiently outweighs the minor costs. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no costs on individuals, has no economic impact on small businesses, and has no fiscal impact on state or local governments. The only costs associated with this rule are administrative in nature, such as the cost to send or receive the notice. These costs are minor and do not outweigh the inherent safety benefits of the rule. The reporting requirement is operationally neutral, leveraging existing compliance channels. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. There are no additional costs to affected parties. The database operates within existing Bureau systems, and no fee-based or costly obligations are introduced. Accordingly, there is no cost to individuals, no economic impact on small businesses, and no fiscal impact on state or local governments. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no cost on individuals or small businesses. The only cost to state or local governments is administrative in nature and should be covered by the modest fee included in the rule. Because the rule imposes no fees beyond existing statutory authorizations and integrates seamlessly into the Bureau's administrative workflows, it does not generate new economic burdens. The benefits of having a framework to ensure proper receipt of payments outweighs these minor costs. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. Since the rule does not impose economic costs on license applicants, examiners, small businesses, or the Bureau, there is negligible financial or administrative burden. The requirement integrates with existing scheduling systems. The only costs are the time cost for failure for individuals and the administrative costs of ensuring compliance with the rule for the Bureau, both of which are minor. These minor costs are far outweighed by the benefit of statutory compliance. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule imposes no direct financial or operational burdens. Applicants receive their motorboat registration numbers as part of routine processing, and enforcement is carried out using existing infrastructure, resulting in negligible economic impact. As such, this rule has no cost on individuals, no economic impact on small businesses, and no fiscal impact on state or local governments. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. Because the rule incorporates an existing federal standard and does not impose direct costs on registrants or the Bureau, it does not create measurable fiscal or economic impacts. The rule places no operational or financial burden on small businesses or individual watercraft owners. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption. There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The rule does not impose costs on registrants, businesses, or the Bureau. The cancellation process is integrated into existing registration workflows, resulting in negligible administrative or economic impact. As such, there is no inherent cost to individuals, no economic impact on small businesses, and no fiscal impact on state or local governments. The agency has also completed a regulatory analysis under IC 4-22-2-22.7 that has been submitted with this readoption.

V. Alternative Methods of Achieving the Purpose of the Rule

There are no alternative methods that would be less costly or less intrusive to small businesses or other regulated entities. Because accident reports and abstracts may still be received at varying times, clear maximum time limits remain necessary. Without this rule, the Bureau would lack precise administrative procedures for handling self-insurance requests. Alternatives such as statutory codification of forms or fee-based pathways could hamper flexibility. Customized adjudication would complicate processing. Current standardized operations remain the most effective and least onerous approach. No less burdensome alternative currently replaces the need for clear documentation standards. The current fixed-amount structure provides predictability, uniformity, and administrative efficiency. The current rule enables an affordable and legally sound option for interested and eligible entities. Therefore, no less restrictive or more cost-effective alternatives presently offer equivalent reliability. There are no alternative methods that would be less costly or less intrusive on small businesses or regulated entities. The administrator being able to petition for the use of collateral to pay outstanding judgments remains an efficient and cost-effective manner of maintaining financial responsibility. Furthermore, the immediate replenishment requirement remains the most reliable and least administratively burdensome method to ensure uninterrupted coverage, minimize financial risk, and protect the public. No alternative currently exists that would be less costly or less intrusive. The current rule's schedule and collateral ceiling system offers a transparent, uniform, and efficient method that remains optimal under current conditions and has a minimal impact on regulated entities. There are no alternative methods that would be less costly or intrusive on small businesses or regulated entities. Administrators are the parties best positioned to provide certificates to their members and as such are the least burdensome avenue to accomplish this feat. In addition, the current method of cost-recovery, when necessary, is straightforward, transparent, and consistent with administrative best practices, offering the least burdensome path. There are no alternative methods that would be less costly or burdensome. Alternatives such as automated monitoring of bankruptcy status cannot replace explicit authority or clearly defined procedures for cancellation and renewal refusal. No less restrictive alternative adequately balances due process with public protection. There are no alternative methods of achieving the purpose of this rule. The rule itself provides administrative standards to follow. No less costly or less restrictive mechanism exists for establishing legal grounds. The current framework remains optimal. There is no alternative that would be less costly or intrusive on small businesses or regulated entities. All parties involved are accustomed to either sending or receiving notices and the burden associated is minimal. There are no alternative methods that would be less costly or burdensome. Written rules ensure that all affected individuals understand their rights and the evidence considered. This method meets the goals of least burden and clarity. The rule's structured approach is the least burdensome way to ensure consistent procedural rights, transparency, and operational predictability. No reasonable alternative method exists to accomplish the same goals. No alternative methods that are less costly or intrusive exist. The requirement for reasonable particularity and documentation ensures efficiency and preserves record integrity. No less burdensome alternative offers comparable precision. There are no alternative methods that would be less costly or less intrusive on small businesses or regulated entities. The current rule offers predictability and facilitates administrative planning without imposing undue costs. It remains the most straightforward method for lifecycle management. There are no alternative methods that are less costly or burdensome. Without a definitions section, each substantive rule would need to restate core terms, causing redundancy and potential inconsistency. The current rule format remains the most efficient and adaptable method to maintain clarity across driver training regulations. There are no viable alternative methods of achieving the purpose of the rule. Alternative methods could include post-license audits or self-certification schemes. However, pre-licensing processes such as background checks and insurance verification provide stronger protection and risk mitigation. This rule remains the most effective and least burdensome approach to safeguarding the integrity of driver training programs. No less costly or less intrusive alternatives have been identified that would achieve the same public safety outcomes. No feasible alternatives have been identified that would maintain program quality while reducing regulatory burden. The rule balances flexibility, such as bureau-approved curriculum and age limits, with essential safeguards. No less restrictive alternative could achieve these specific quality and enrollment safeguards. No alternative method of eliminating or reducing regulatory requirements would adequately ensure the integrity and fitness of driver training instructors while upholding public safety. The agency has not identified any alternative regulatory approach that would reduce burden while achieving comparable public safety outcomes. Because the rule focuses on conduct, accountability, and documentation rather than imposing procedural or structural barriers, it already represents the least burdensome method capable of ensuring safe and professional instruction. There are no viable alternatives capable of maintaining the same level of program quality and public safety. Approving instructor training programs without curriculum evaluation would be insufficient, and adopting a less formal process would undermine instructional consistency and statewide comparability. There are no alternative methods of achieving the purpose of the rule. No alternative funding mechanism or lower fee structure has been identified that would maintain licensing functionality without burdening taxpayers. The exemption for public entities helps avoid unnecessary duplication of state expenditures. The Bureau identified no less intrusive alternative capable of maintaining clear enforcement standards. Without defined criteria and procedures, the Bureau's ability to administer license discipline consistently and transparently would be undermined. No viable alternative mechanism would ensure the same level of financial protection in the event of training vehicle accidents. The current requirement leverages the private insurance market efficiently without burdening taxpayers or complicating regulatory oversight. No less burdensome alternative would ensure comprehensive oversight of training school compliance. Without such audit and recordkeeping requirements, the Bureau's ability to verify instructional delivery, student enrollment, and regulatory adherence would be significantly impaired. No viable alternative exists that meets constitutional and statutory requirements for due process while eliminating this procedural rule. Without it, the BMV could not ensure consistent hearings in accordance with IC 4-21.5. No meaningful alternative exists that ensures due consideration of individual hardship while maintaining fairness. Without a waiver process, the agency would be unable to accommodate unique circumstances where strict adherence to age or experience requirements would cause significant hardship. No alternative exists that would be less costly or intrusive on regulated entities or small businesses. For 4-1, there is no less costly or intrusive means to define the rule's scope that would maintain legal clarity and regulatory consistency. Removing or weakening this applicability provision would introduce ambiguity, potentially obstructing enforcement and regulatory cohesion. For 4-1.1, no alternative has been identified that would deliver equivalent safety outcomes at lower cost or intrusion on small businesses or regulated entities. The enumerated curriculum ensures consistency and comprehensiveness. A less prescriptive standard or directing schools to develop their own curricula would risk uneven instruction quality and undermine regulatory objectives. For 4-1.2, no less intrusive or costly method could guarantee that all licensed students receive hands-on instruction in these critical maneuvers. A less prescriptive approach could result in inconsistent training quality and greater risk to novice drivers. For 4-1.3, No alternative approach would adequately ensure student and instructor safety while achieving regulatory goals. Eliminating or reducing the safety equipment requirements would substantially impair the Bureau's ability to ensure safe instructional conditions. The current vehicle age limit and safety standards reflect appropriate minimal intervention. As such, there is no less costly or burdensome alternative. The Bureau has not identified any viable alternative approaches that would maintain instructional rigor and student competency while reducing cost or burden on regulated entities. Eliminating hour minimums, attendance controls, or completion timelines would compromise training consistency and pose increased safety risks. The current rule represents the least restrictive method capable of achieving its public safety goals. No alternative approach would be less costly or preserve instructional integrity while offering the same clarity and enforceability. Allowing completion without passing grades, or allowing waiver issuance based on partial success, would undermine the reliability of driver education outcomes. Thus, the current performance requirement is the least intrusive effective option. No meaningful alternative exists that would protect public safety with equal effectiveness. Eliminating or relaxing testing requirements for long-expired licenses would risk allowing insufficiently skilled or knowledgeable drivers back onto the road. Conversely, requiring all expired-license applicants to complete full retesting would impose unnecessary burden. The current graduated structure is the least intrusive, yet effective, approach. There is no reasonable less-restrictive alternative that would ensure an equivalent level of roadway safety. Eliminating or reducing retesting for long-expired or minimally experienced drivers would risk allowing unsafe drivers onto Indiana roads. Conversely, requiring full testing for all applicants (including those with short expiration periods and established licensure histories) would impose unnecessary burdens. The current tiered approach strikes an appropriate balance. No alternative mechanism would adequately ensure the protection of consumers purchasing rebuilt or formerly salvage vehicles. Eliminating salvage-title or rebuilt-title requirements would increase fraud risks and could enable unsafe vehicles to be registered without oversight. The current framework already represents the least intrusive method that still provides the necessary protections. There are no alternative methods that would be less costly or less intrusive on small businesses or regulated entities. The BMV has not identified a practical alternative method that would ensure the same level of medical reliability and public safety. Self-attestation would be insufficient and requiring additional or repeated testing would increase burden without added benefit. The physician-certificate requirement remains the most balanced and effective approach. There are no reasonable alternative methods for ensuring applicants retain lawful driving privileges in situations where issuance of a permanent credential is temporarily impossible. Delaying issuance until full processing is complete would cause unnecessary hardship and burden. Conversely, automatically issuing permanent credentials without final verification could compromise identity security and compliance. The interim credential is the least restrictive effective solution. Alternative fee structures such as state-subsidized examiner compensation or unregulated market-priced fees would either increase taxpayer burden or lead to inconsistent and potentially excessive pricing. The current model ensures fairness, cost recovery, and stable access to testing. Therefore, no less costly or less intrusive alternative would achieve the rule's objectives. There are no viable alternative methods that would accomplish the purposes of 140 IAC 7-3-2 while being less restrictive or less costly. Allowing individuals to hold multiple driver's licenses would directly conflict with federal CDL regulations and undermine state and federal efforts to track safety-sensitive driving behavior. Similarly, altering or eliminating the four-year expiration cycle would disrupt administrative uniformity and complicate the BMV's existing renewal, medical certification, and record-check processes. The rule represents the least intrusive means of meeting its public safety and licensing objectives. TITLE 140 IAC 7-3-13 There are no viable alternative approaches that would achieve the same regulatory purpose while reducing burden. The qualifications required are essential to ensure that examiners possess the necessary knowledge and operational experience to competently evaluate CDL applicants. Reducing or removing these requirements would undermine the reliability of CDL testing and could conflict with existing federal CDL program standards. The present framework represents the least intrusive means of meeting statutory and safety objectives. No less intrusive or costly alternatives appear viable. Potential alternatives such as purely federal oversight or revocation via broader administrative codes would not ensure timely, targeted state enforcement. Suspension and revocation via due process allow for administrative flexibility while protecting examiner rights. Alternatives, such as relying solely on court-to-Bureau data exchange or penalizing non-reporting, would either be less timely or riskier by delaying employer awareness. The existing framework ensures immediate, accountable notification while minimizing administrative burden and preserving due process. As such, no alternate method that is less costly or intrusive exists. In its current form, the only costs for 140 IAC 7-6-1 are administrative with no direct costs for customers. In addition, the burden is minimal for both the Bureau and customers. The current model balances rapid access for authorized responders with minimal administrative obligation and controlled use of data. There are no alternative methods that would be less costly or intrusive on small businesses or regulated entities. Alternative approaches, such as outsourcing collection, imposing heavier penalties, or suspending without opportunity for reinstatement, would increase administrative complexity and cost or reduce fairness. The current model balances financial accountability with procedural transparency. Parties can avoid all charges associated with this rule by ensuring payments are made correctly and promptly, which is a very minor obligation. Alternatives such as requiring additional training before retesting or allowing immediate retakes are not optimal. Requiring training would impose undue time and cost on applicants, while allowing immediate retakes could diminish examination seriousness, burden resources, and reduce fairness. The existing waiting period strikes a balance by preserving test integrity and operational efficiency. Therefore, no reasonable alternative exists that reduces cost or burden on regulated entities. Alternative systems, such as randomly generated alphanumeric sequences or owner-selected identifiers, could complicate enforcement and reduce data consistency. Centralizing the format under this rule ensures a unified system that supports state oversight, boating safety, and ease of verification. As such, there is no alternative method that would be less costly or intrusive. The Bureau could theoretically adopt an Indiana-specific display standard; however, that approach would create inconsistency with federal regulations and complicate enforcement. Continued reliance on the federally established standard remains the most efficient and least intrusive alternative, ensuring uniformity across states and federal waterways. No feasible alternative would reduce regulatory burden while still meeting safety, compliance, and enforcement needs. Alternatives such as requiring dual-state verification before issuing a registration, creating formal dispute adjudication processes, or requiring affidavits from registrants would impose significantly higher burdens without improving accuracy. The present rule provides the least restrictive and most efficient mechanism to prevent duplicate registrations.

VI. Complaints and Comments

The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about any of these rules. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule. The bureau has received no complaints or comments about this rule.

VII. Difficulties Encountered

The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. No administrative challenges have been encountered by the bureau regarding this rule, nor has any adverse impact on small businesses or prospective drivers been identified. No administrative challenges have been encountered by the bureau regarding this rule, nor has any adverse impact on small businesses or prospective drivers been identified. No administrative challenges have been encountered by the bureau regarding this rule, nor has any adverse impact on small businesses or prospective drivers been identified. No administrative challenges have been encountered by the bureau regarding this rule, nor has any adverse impact on small businesses or prospective drivers been identified. No administrative challenges have been encountered by the bureau regarding this rule, nor has any adverse impact on small businesses or prospective drivers been identified. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. No administrative challenges have been encountered by the bureau regarding this rule, nor has any adverse impact on small businesses or prospective drivers been identified. No administrative challenges have been encountered by the bureau regarding this rule, nor has any adverse impact on small businesses or prospective drivers been identified. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering these rules and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. No administrative challenges have been encountered by the bureau regarding this rule, nor has any adverse impact on small businesses or prospective drivers been identified. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. No administrative challenges have been encountered by the bureau regarding this rule, nor has any adverse impact on small businesses or prospective drivers been identified. No administrative challenges have been encountered by the bureau regarding this rule, nor has any adverse impact on small businesses or prospective drivers been identified. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. The bureau has had no difficulties administering this rule and is not aware of any difficulties experienced by small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. Implementation of this rule has proceeded without administrative impediment, and the bureau has received no indications of compliance difficulties from small businesses or prospective drivers. No administrative challenges have been encountered by the bureau regarding this rule, nor has any adverse impact on small businesses or prospective drivers been identified.

VIII. Changes in Technology, Economic Conditions, or Other Factors

Economic and operational conditions relevant to financial responsibility enforcement have not materially changed since this rule's adoption. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since the rule was last readopted. The rule's framework continues to be relevant and effective. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since the rule was last readopted. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since readoption of this rule. The rule continues to function effectively in modern environments. Changes in technology or other factors have had no impact on this rule. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since the adoption of this rule. There have been no relevant changes in technology or economic conditions since readoption of the rule. The rule remains operationally relevant. There have not been any relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since the rule's readoption. There have been no relevant changes in technology or economic conditions since the rule's adoption or readoption. There have been no relevant changes in technology or any other factors since the rule's adoption. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since the rule was last readopted. Changes in technology and economic conditions have had no impact on this rule. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since this rule's readoption. No relevant changes have occurred in technology or economic conditions since this rule's readoption. Changes in technology and economic conditions have not had any impact on this rule. No developments in technology, economic conditions, or other factors have had any impact on this rule. Neither changes in technology nor economic conditions have had any impact on this rule. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since the rule was last readopted. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since the rule was last readopted. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since the Chapter was last readopted. There is no evidence that technological or economic shifts have had any impact on the rule. There have been no technological, economical, or procedural changes affecting how the Bureau carries out suspensions or revocations. The rule's structure remains compatible with contemporary administrative systems and fairness protocols. There have been no technological, economic, or other changes to necessitate changes to the substantive insurance requirement. There have been no relevant changes in technology or economic conditions since this rule was last readopted. Current hearing procedures, including options for virtual participation, remain compatible with the statutory framework. Changes in technology and economic conditions have not had an impact on the rule. No relevant changes in technology or economic factors have impacted this rule. External changes in technology or economic factors have no direct effect on any of these rules' substantive applicability. The rules remain foundational and universally applicable regardless of any changes. No relevant changes in technology or economic conditions have occurred since the rule's readoption. No changes in technology or economic factors since this rule was last readopted have had an impact on this rule. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since the rule was last readopted. Changes in technology or economic conditions have had no impact on this rule since it was last readopted. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since this rule was last readopted. No technological, economic, or environmental changes render the rule outdated or unnecessary. The requirement remains appropriate and effective. There have been no relevant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors since the rule was last readopted. There have been no relevant changes in technology or economic conditions since the rule's readoption. No economic or external developments have rendered the rule obsolete or impractical since its last readoption. Changes in technology or economic conditions have had no impact on this rule. Since the rule's last readoption in 2020, no technological or economic shifts directly affect its application. There have been no relevant or impactful changes in technology or economic factors since this rule's last adoption. Changes in technology or economic conditions have had no impact on this rule. Increasingly digital payment processing and automated banking systems support the rule's procedures, improving efficiency and accuracy. The rule remains unaffected by economic changes, and its structure accommodates evolving payment methods without modification. As such, changes in technology or economic conditions have had no impact on this rule. Advancements in online scheduling and automated testing systems support efficient enforcement of the rule. Economic changes or shifts in test delivery methods have no impact on its relevance. The rule remains suited to evolving technology and operational contexts and changes in technology or economic conditions have had no relevant impact. There have been no economic or technological shifts that are relevant since the rule's readoption. There have been no technological or economic changes that diminish the necessity or suitability of the rule. Modern printing and marine-supply industries continue to produce number decals and related materials consistent with federal standards, and law enforcement identification needs remain unchanged. The incorporation-by-reference model continues to ensure that Indiana's requirements remain aligned with any future updates to federal standards. Modern electronic registration systems have made interstate verification faster and more reliable, reinforcing the continued relevance of the rule. Changes in economic conditions or boating industry practices have not introduced circumstances that diminish its necessity or appropriateness. As such, there have been no relevant changes in technology or economic conditions since the rule's last readoption.

IX. Other State or Federal Requirements

Ohio's Revised Code and Administrative Code contain provisions very similar to Indiana's rule. R.C. 4509.06 allows anyone involved in a motor vehicle accident to file an accident report within 6 months of the accident, alleging that the other driver was uninsured; upon receiving this report, the Registrar must request the driver or owner to provide proof of financial responsibility within 30 days of the notice. O.A.C. 4501:1-2-01 details acceptable forms of proof of financial responsibility, including insurance, deposit, self-insurance, or SR-22 bond. These closely parallel Indiana's "request for evidence" time limits and required response window. Notably, Ohio's rule is more restrictive, allowing only 6 months compared to Indiana's 3 years. No true equivalent administrative code rule exists for the other states that mirror 140 IAC 1-2-7's requirement regarding time limits for sending requests and receiving proof. Kentucky has no administrative regulation in the Motor Vehicle Commission or Title 601 KAR that clearly addresses time limits for requesting proof after an accident or conviction. Kentucky's Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (KRS 304.39) establishes minimum insurance requirements, personal injury protection (PIP), and statutory penalties for driving uninsured, but it does not address the timing of evidence-of-responsibility requests. In Illinois, 92 Ill. Admin. Code Part 1070 (Safety Responsibility Law) outlines forms of security and administrative procedures but does not specify time limits for sending or responding to financial responsibility evidence requests akin to Indiana's rule. Michigan's Administrative Code does not contain provisions establishing specific timelines for evidence-of-financial-responsibility requests following accidents or judgments. Michigan's Vehicle Code (Act 300 of 1949) defines proof of financial responsibility requirements and establishes methods for compliance. However, these statutes focus on forms of acceptable proof rather than instituting deadlines for sending or responding to requests as Indiana's rule does Idaho has rules for motor carrier insurance requirements in Idaho Admin. Code r. 39.02.80.020 but no section governing timelines for requesting proof of responsibility post-accident or conviction. The Idaho Code also does not have any law that establishes a specific time limit for financial responsibility requests or responses to such requests. South Dakota has no relevant law or regulation in their legislative code or administrative code concerning time limits for such requests. South Dakota's SDCL Title 32, Chapter 35 governs financial responsibility, defining forms of acceptable insurance, bonds, deposits, and the obligations of convicted drivers or judgement debtors to provide proof for future coverage (see, e.g., SDCL 32-35-43, 32-35-47). While it requires submission of proof and may impose suspension for noncompliance, there is no statute specifying a deadline similar to Indiana's requirement for timely evidence requests after accidents or convictions. There are no federal regulations that mirror Indiana's 140 IAC 1-2-7 rule for private drivers regarding deadlines for sending or responding to proof-of-financial-responsibility requests. The only somewhat related federal requirement is FMCSA's 35-day cancellation notice for commercial carriers, but it doesn't address accident-related requests or time limits in the same manner as Indiana's rule. Therefore, with the sole exception of Ohio, all the other states examined lack Indiana's built-in enforcement mechanism, in that they provide for financial responsibility but never specify when drivers must be notified or respond. Indiana's rule is thus more restrictive both in requiring formal, timely administrative action and enforceable deadlines, creating a higher standard of accountability for drivers. Increased accountability has heavy ties to increased safety for all drivers, which is why Indiana elected to choose this enforcement mechanism when most other states did not. Ohio permits self-insurance through a combination of statutory and administrative provisions, primarily OAC 4501:1-2-05 and ORC 4509.72. Certificates may be issued for up to 5 years upon demonstration of financial capability, and the registrar may cancel a certificate if an unpaid judgment remains outstanding 30 days after finality. Financial statements are required for application or renewal but follow Ohio's multi-year certification structure rather than annual filing cycles. Kentucky authorizes self-insurance for owners of large fleets of 25 or more vehicles. Under KRS 187.600, applicants must submit audited financial statements both at the initial application stage and annually thereafter, along with disclosure of assets, liabilities, and vehicle information. Certificates remain valid so long as the entity maintains its financial eligibility, subject to revocation for insolvency or unpaid judgments. Illinois law recognizes self-insurance as an acceptable method of demonstrating financial responsibility. Under 625 ILCS 5/7-502, requirements include owning more than 25 vehicles and demonstration of financial capacity and compliance with security and liability thresholds. Illinois statutes do not include annual reporting obligations, instead relying on the Secretary of State's authority to administer and monitor eligibility. Cancellation may occur if unpaid judgments persist 30 days after final judgment. Michigan permits self-insurance for fleet owners who meet financial responsibility thresholds. Acceptable forms of financial responsibility include insurance, surety bonds, deposits, or approved self-insurance arrangements. Michigan statutes do not mandate annual financial statement filings for self-insurers; rather, the framework centers on maintaining continuing financial ability. Idaho's Idaho Code Section 49-1224 allows self-insurance for owners of fleets with at least 25 vehicles. Idaho requires annual financial statements, evidence of a minimum net worth of $500,000, and submission of vehicle listings. Renewal procedures include filing fees and the possibility of certificate cancellation when judgments remain unpaid for 30 days. South Dakota allows self-insurance within its financial responsibility scheme under SDCL Section 32-35 for fleet owners of more than 25 vehicles, although statutory provisions do not require annual filing or detailed recurring reporting for self-insurers. Oversight focuses on continued financial capacity and compliance with liability requirements. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations under 49 CFR Part 387 allow certain motor carriers to self-insure if they demonstrate adequate net worth, reserve policies, and a sound risk-management program. Applicants must submit detailed financial information and maintain a satisfactory safety rating, with approval subject to ongoing federal review. Federal rules do not impose a strict annual filing requirement but require carriers to maintain qualifying conditions and submit updates as necessary. Across the jurisdictions reviewed, self-insurance frameworks vary in structure, renewal periods, and reporting frequency. Indiana, Kentucky, and Idaho incorporate annual financial reporting into their self-insurance programs. Ohio uses multi-year certification with financial reporting tied to application and renewal cycles. Illinois, Michigan, and South Dakota do not prescribe annual financial reporting requirements for self-insurers. Federal regulations emphasize financial capacity and safety performance but do not include annual filing mandates. Thus, Indiana's framework is more procedurally intensive because it formalizes continuing oversight through calendar-based obligations, whereas most comparable jurisdictions rely on event-based oversight, multi-year certification cycles, or discretionary agency review. Whether this constitutes being more restrictive depends on the lens applied: Indiana does not impose harsher penalties or more stringent financial thresholds than other jurisdictions, but it does require more frequent and structured regulatory engagement, which can be understood as a higher compliance burden relative to states using longer reporting intervals or reactive review systems. In Ohio, OAC 4501:1-2-05 and ORC 4509.72 provide that applicants with over 25 vehicles must demonstrate net worth of at least $100,000 plus "sufficient reserves to pay any judgment likely." There is no fixed collateral per vehicle; the entire certificate relies on aggregate net worth and reserve sufficiency, with no defined cash/escrow minimums. Certificates last up to five years and may be canceled if a judgment remains unpaid 30 days after finality, after at least 5 days' notice. In Kentucky, 806 KAR 39:050 provides that self-insurers must file audited balance sheets and income statements annually, listing covered vehicles. They are required to provide security "to meet continuing obligations". The minimum security is $50,000 for the first vehicle and $10,000 for each additional vehicle up to $200,000. Security may be in the form of a bond or escrow deposit, approved by the Commissioner. Illinois does not establish any collateral amount requirements per vehicle. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 92, Section 1425.120 establishes net worth thresholds based upon the size of the fleet to be covered by the insurance, from $500,000 to $1,000,000, as well as a requirement to own at least $500,000 in property in Illinois. Michigan Administrative Code R. 257.532 provides that one qualifies for self-insurance only if they possess a net worth of at least $15,000,000, among other requirements. There is no per-vehicle collateral requirement. Idaho requires, under Idaho Code Section 49-1224, all applicants to demonstrate a net worth of at least $500,000. There are no defined per-vehicle collateral requirements. South Dakota also does not establish per-vehicle collateral requirements. South Dakota Codified Laws 32-35-91 provides that if the department is "satisfied that [applicant] is possessed and will continue to be possessed of ability to pay judgments obtained against [applicant]" may be granted a certified of self-insurance. 49 CFR Section 387.309 states that a self-insurer can be approved if the applicant "furnishes a true and accurate statement of its financial condition and other evidence that establishes to the satisfaction of the FMCSA the ability of the motor carrier to satisfy its [obligations]." No per-vehicle collateral requirement exists. As such, Indiana and Kentucky establish per-vehicle collateral requirements while Illinois, Michigan, and Idaho require a net worth floor. South Dakota and federal guidelines only require a vaguer showing of sufficient ability to pay potential judgments. Indiana, Kentucky, Idaho, and federal standards require formal financial statements and can cancel certificates based on nonpayment or financial deterioration. Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and South Dakota focus on event-driven oversight where judgment nonpayment triggers administrative actions. Ohio's OAC 4501:1-2-05 and ORC 4509.72 allow cancellation of a self-insurance certificate if judgments are unpaid 30 days after finality with at least 5 days' notice, but do not authorize use of posted collateral nor specify repayment timelines. Kentucky's KRS 187.600 provides that failure to pay judgments within 30 days will result in cancellation of the self-insurance certificate. 806 KAR 39:050 provides that any security paid to the state by the insurer can be disbursed to interested parties if obligations remain unsatisfied for 90 days. In Illinois, under 625 ILCS 5/7-502 et seq., the Secretary may cancel the certificate if a judgment remains unpaid after a 30-day period following notice, but there is no authority permitting withdrawal from collateral nor specified replenishment timeframe. Michigan's MCL 257.518-519 allow proof of financial responsibility through self-insurance certificates. However, no statutory provision authorizes using collateral deposits to satisfy debts, nor sets any "replenish" requirement. Idaho's system is strictly an audited qualification exemption and as such does not require or collect upfront collateral for a self-insurance certificate. Idaho Code Section 49-1224 requires Idaho to approve self-insurance based solely on an applicant's verified net worth and financial liquidity. In South Dakota, SDCL 32-35-90 permits certificates of self-insurance, and SDCL 32-35-113 addresses minimum bond or deposit levels for general financial responsibility. However, there is no provision that authorizes use of collateral or stipulates replenishment timing. Per 49 CFR Section 387.309, carrier self-insurance applications require evidence of financial capacity (net worth, trust funds, letters of credit), and programs must satisfy potential liabilities. However, FMCSA regulations do not authorize use of posted financial assurances to pay claims nor define timelines for replenishing such reserves. Indiana Administrative Code 140 IAC 1-7-4 is not more restrictive than other jurisdictions; rather, it provides a superior, more functional legal framework that prioritizes public protection over corporate convenience. While states like Michigan, Idaho, and South Dakota appear lenient by not requiring upfront financial deposits, their frameworks lack teeth when a corporation defaults. When looking objectively at the mechanisms of 140 IAC 1-7-4, Indiana's system is both a standard-bearer for practical regulation and a more flexible choice for operators compared to its immediate neighbors. Ohio law does not require self-insurers to file annual schedules of claims or to increase their collateral based on claims experience. Instead, Ohio focuses on whether the self-insurer can satisfy judgments and maintains a minimum net worth of $100,000 along with reserves sufficient to pay expected claims, as required by OAC 4501:1-2-05. Ohio may cancel a certificate only if a final judgment remains unpaid 30 days after it becomes final, following at least five days' notice. Ohio therefore uses a reactive enforcement mechanism rather than Indiana's proactive claims-monitoring model. Kentucky requires self-insurers to submit annual audited financial statements that list assets, liabilities, and covered vehicles; however, Kentucky does not require the submission of a schedule of claims or impose additional collateral requirements when claims increase. Instead, Kentucky merely requires the entity to demonstrate that it has "security to meet continuing obligations," which the Department reviews as part of its financial solvency oversight. This structure provides financial review but lacks the claim-specific, collateral-adjustment mechanism found in Indiana. Illinois allows self-insurance if the applicant demonstrates financial ability to pay claims, but it does not require annual reporting of incurred claims or impose requirements to increase collateral when claims rise. Under Illinois law, a certificate of self-insurance may be canceled if a judgment remains unpaid for 30 days after notice, but no statute or administrative rule requires the state to monitor claims experience or adjust collateral. Illinois therefore ties compliance solely to post-judgment financial responsibility rather than ongoing risk-based collateral review. Michigan permits self-insurance through certification under MCL 257.518, but the law does not require annual filing of claims schedules or collateral adjustments based on claims experience. While Michigan authorizes its administrative agency to require a bond or other security, when necessary, it does not link such requirements to a mandatory, periodic evaluation of incurred claims. Michigan's system is therefore discretionary and does not contain the embedded claims-based oversight that Indiana mandates. Idaho requires self-insurers to submit an annual financial statement showing a net worth of at least $500,000, a vehicle list, and a renewal fee, but Idaho does not require the state to collect a schedule of incurred claims or to condition collateral increases on claim activity. Although Idaho may cancel a certificate if a judgment remains unpaid for 30 days, the state does not monitor or adjust collateral in response to developing claims data. Idaho's framework therefore relies on overall financial capacity rather than ongoing claims-based evaluation. South Dakota allows self-insurance under SDCL 32-35-90 and related provisions and requires the entity to maintain valid proof of financial responsibility, but it does not require submission of claims schedules or impose additional collateral obligations tied to claims experience. South Dakota's statutory structure focuses primarily on whether the self-insurer maintains the required proof of responsibility, and it does not include mechanisms to adjust collateral as claims develop. Federal regulations require motor carriers who self-insure to demonstrate sufficient net worth, reserves, and financial safeguards, including trust funds, letters of credit, or surety arrangements. However, federal regulations do not require carriers to submit schedules of incurred claims, nor do they require carriers to increase their collateral based on claims experience. Once approved, a carrier must maintain adequate safety ratings and financial assurances, but the oversight structure does not include the dynamic collateral adjustment tied to the insurer's actual incurred losses. Indiana Administrative Code 140 IAC 1-7-5 is not actually more restrictive than other jurisdictions; rather, it provides a transparent, data-driven framework that relies on real-world risk rather than arbitrary corporate net worth. Ultimately, 140 IAC 1-7-5 is a highly efficient regulation. It protects the public by adjusting for real-world risk, while simultaneously protecting businesses with a predictable, legally capped financial threshold that neighboring states lack. Comparative analysis with other jurisdictions indicates that no equivalent provision was found in the administrative regulations or statutes of Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, Idaho, or South Dakota regarding mandatory distribution of master self-insurance certificates to participants or cost recovery for administrative forms. In those states, self-insurance rules typically authorize issuance or renewal of certificates to a self-insuring entity, with no requirement that administrators distribute them to individual users or group members. On the federal level, FMCSA's 49 CFR § 387.309 sets financial criteria for commercial motor carrier self-insurance but contains no requirement for issuance of master certificates to participants or related cost recovery provisions. 140 IAC 1-7-6 introduces a unique administrative requirement by mandating distribution of master certificates to participants and enabling cost recovery. That distribution and cost-recovery mechanism is not present in the corresponding laws or regulations of the other states or in federal self-insurance standards but is not burdensome and furthers goals of administrative efficiency and transparency. Indiana's 140 IAC 1-7-8 outlines clear administrative authority to cancel or refuse to renew a self-insurance certificate, detailing the process by which the BMV can revoke the certificate due to noncompliance, such as failure to meet filing requirements or pay obligations in a timely manner. In Ohio, administrative rules under OAC 4501:1-2-05 and statutes in ORC 4509.72 authorize the Registrar to cancel a certificate of self-insurance if the applicant does not meet financial criteria, including if a judgment remains unpaid 30 days after finality, following at least five days' notice. However, Ohio's regulations do not mirror Indiana's structure for refusal of renewal based on filing failures or broader administrative maintenance requirements. Kentucky's system includes the authority under 806 KAR 39:050 and statutes like KRS 304.39-080 to revoke self-insurance status for failing to maintain required security or insolvency. However, Kentucky does not prescribe formal criteria or timelines for not renewing certificates if an applicant fails to submit ongoing disclosures, nor does it specify procedural nuances around nonrenewal as Indiana's rule does. In Illinois, statutes 625 ILCS 5/7-502 et seq. allow for certificate cancellation if judgments are left unpaid after 30 days. Illinois law does not address certificate nonrenewal tied to administrative or documentary noncompliance, nor does it establish explicit procedures for refusal to renew like Indiana's rule. Michigan grants the Director of Insurance the discretion under MCL 257.518-519 and related administrative rules to revoke a certificate for cause (e.g., insolvency or nonpayment) but does not set out the detailed refusal-of-renewal process modeled in Indiana's regulation. In Idaho, Idaho Code § 49-1224 empowers the Department to cancel a self-insurance certificate for failure to pay judgments or meet financial requirements. The statute provides for cancellation after notice but lacks Indiana's articulated refusal-to-renew criteria for administrative noncompliance. South Dakota's statutes (e.g., SDCL § 32-35-90) allow for termination of self-insurance certificates but do not specify circumstances for refusing renewal based on administrative duty failures or outline procedural frameworks equivalent to Indiana's rule. At the federal level, FMCSA regulations under 49 CFR § 387.309 prescribe cancellation of a self-insurance approval if a carrier loses its safety rating or fails to maintain required financial or safety standards. The federal rules do not incorporate renewal refusal based on filing or administrative noncompliance, nor do they define the renewal refusal process in the manner that Indiana's rule does. Indiana's 140 IAC 1-7-8 is distinctive in that it provides explicit administrative grounds and a structured process for both refusing to renew and canceling a certificate based on broader compliance criteria, including failure to file required documentation or adhere to deadlines. While other jurisdictions and federal regulations include cancellation for financial shortcomings or unpaid judgments, they do not replicate Indiana's detailing of administrative noncompliance and nonrenewal processes. Ohio does not include a code provision analogous to Indiana's comprehensive "reasonable grounds" standard tied to self-insurance administration. Ohio's regulatory scheme focuses on financial sufficiency rather than fraudulent application procedures. Kentucky's self-insurance regulations under 806 KAR 39:050 include authority for revoking self-insurance status for failure to meet financial assurance obligations, but they do not define broader "reasonable grounds" tied to misrepresentation or credential integrity. The focus in Kentucky is squarely on continued financial capacity. Similarly, Illinois' self-insurance statute (625 ILCS 5/7-502) authorizes cancellation of a certificate for failures such as unpaid judgments, but it does not outline a misconduct-based standard like fraud, misinformation, or misrepresentation. The conditions are narrowly financial. Michigan's law under MCL 257.518 authorizes self-insurance without specifying misconduct-based grounds for suspension or revocation, relying instead on failure to maintain financial responsibility or satisfy legal obligations. There are no parallel provisions addressing fraud-based license suspension. Idaho, per Idaho Code § 49-1224, allows certificate cancellation for failure to pay judgments or meet financial requirements but does not define "reasonable grounds" in terms of fraud or misrepresentation, nor address administrative misconduct. South Dakota statutes under Title 58 provide general regulatory authority over insurance matters, including bond and financial requirements, but they do not include provisions addressing credential integrity or misrepresentation as grounds for certificate suspension in self-insurance. On the federal level, FMCSA's 49 CFR § 387.309 addresses eligibility requirements for self-insurance based on net worth, safety ratings, and financial condition. It does not empower the agency to suspend self-insurance authorization based on fraud, misrepresentation, or credential violations comparable to Indiana's standard under 1-9-1. Indiana uniquely provides a broad, misconduct-based standard under 140 IAC 1-9-1-covering fraud, credential misuse, misrepresentation, and threats to public safety-as grounds for administrative action. Other jurisdictions and federal rules predominantly tie suspension or cancellation to financial noncompliance or judgment enforcement, without adopting a similarly expansive "reasonable grounds" approach anchored in misconduct. A review of statutes and regulations in other jurisdictions does not identify equivalent provisions that require a written notice outlining both the action taken and a discrete timeframe for requesting review of driver suspensions or revocations. Instead, other states typically rely on broader administrative law frameworks or statutory due-process protections without mirroring Indiana's specific structure. Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, Idaho, and South Dakota maintain general administrative procedure acts or vehicle codes that prescribe notice requirements and hearing rights. However, none specify a content structure akin to Indiana's tri-part notice or a fixed deadline such as Indiana's eighteen days for requesting review of suspension or revocation. In the federal context, administrative law principles require notice and opportunity to respond in enforcement proceedings, but there is no specific federal regulation mandating a notice structure for motor vehicle license suspension or revocation analogous to Indiana's 140 IAC 1-9-3. 140 IAC 1-9-3 acts as a crucial due process shield. By forcing the state to provide a written blueprint for administrative recourse alongside a strict 18-day review window, Indiana ensures that compliant businesses are never victims of a sudden, unannounced regulatory freeze. It replaces bureaucratic chaos with complete operational transparency. Indiana's 140 IAC 1-9-4 prescribes a detailed administrative hearing process for suspensions or revocations under IC 9-14-8-3, enabling affected individuals to request review within eighteen days of notice, submit relevant documentation, and have their action stayed pending review. In comparison, Ohio follows its general administrative procedure model for license actions governed by Chapter 4501, but there is no specific timeframe like Indiana's eighteen-day window tied to notice of suspension or revocation under its BMV rules 3. Ohio's framework allows hearings but lacks the precise procedural structure seen in Indiana's 1-9-4. Kentucky, under its administrative regulations for self-insurance and professional licensing, adheres to the state's Administrative Procedures Act for contested case hearings. Kentucky law does not, however, establish specific deadlines or hearing entitlement procedures tied directly to the notice of suspension or revocation of credentials comparable to Indiana's enumeration. Illinois grants the Secretary of State the authority to suspend or revoke driving privileges under 625 ILCS 5/6-206 and permits hearings, but the statute does not specify the content of the notice or an exact period for requesting a review. Michigan provides explicit hearing processes within MCL 257.323, where an aggrieved individual may petition for judicial review within 63 days of the final administrative decision, served at least 20 days before the hearing 6. While comparable in respect to hearing rights, Michigan's timeframe is longer and tied to a judicial review process rather than an administrative review of a stay upon suspension. Idaho, per Idaho Code Section 49-326, authorizes immediate suspension or revocation based on administrative records without requiring a pre-hearing notice period. Hearing rights are governed generally by the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act, but no regulation stipulates a fixed timeframe for requesting review after notice, unlike Indiana's precise 18-day requirement. South Dakota relies on its APA framework and statutory authority for vehicle-related credential actions. However, there is no statute detailing specific deadlines for requesting administrative review following notice of suspension or revocation in the manner provided by Indiana's 1-9-4. At the federal level, 32 CFR § 634.11 outlines due process for suspension or revocation of driving privileges on military installations, including a 14-day window to request a hearing after notice. Although this resembles Indiana's structure, it applies narrowly to military personnel and installations and is not applicable to civilian driver licensing. While many jurisdictions uphold administrative hearing rights under their general due-process laws, Indiana's 140 IAC 1-9-4 is unique in explicitly defining the hearing request window, content submission requirement, and automatic stay of suspension. These features are more procedurally detailed than those of other states, which either omit specific timelines or rely on more general administrative frameworks. By establishing a formalized checklist, Indiana transforms what could be a blunt punitive tool into a data-driven legal filter. It guarantees that compliant enterprises are given an objective opportunity to preserve their operational capabilities. Indiana's 140 IAC 1-9-5 prescribes a detailed administrative hearing process for suspensions or revocations under IC 9-14-8-3, enabling affected individuals to request review within eighteen days of notice, submit relevant documentation, and have their action stayed pending review. In comparison, Ohio follows its general administrative procedure model for license actions governed by Chapter 4501, but there is no specific timeframe like Indiana's eighteen-day window tied to notice of suspension or revocation under its BMV rules 3. Ohio's framework allows hearings but lacks the precise procedural structure seen in Indiana's 1-9-4. Kentucky, under its administrative regulations for self-insurance and professional licensing, adheres to the state's Administrative Procedures Act for contested case hearings. Kentucky law does not, however, establish specific deadlines or hearing entitlement procedures tied directly to the notice of suspension or revocation of credentials comparable to Indiana's enumeration. Illinois grants the Secretary of State the authority to suspend or revoke driving privileges under 625 ILCS 5/6-206 and permits hearings, but the statute does not specify the content of the notice or an exact period for requesting a review. Michigan provides explicit hearing processes within MCL 257.323, where an aggrieved individual may petition for judicial review within 63 days of the final administrative decision, served at least 20 days before the hearing 6. While comparable in respect to hearing rights, Michigan's timeframe is longer and tied to a judicial review process rather than an administrative review of a stay upon suspension. Idaho, per Idaho Code Section 49-326, authorizes immediate suspension or revocation based on administrative records without requiring a pre-hearing notice period. Hearing rights are governed generally by the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act, but no regulation stipulates a fixed timeframe for requesting review after notice, unlike Indiana's precise 18-day requirement. South Dakota relies on its APA framework and statutory authority for vehicle-related credential actions. However, there is no statute detailing specific deadlines for requesting administrative review following notice of suspension or revocation in the manner provided by Indiana's 1-9-4. At the federal level, 32 CFR § 634.11 outlines due process for suspension or revocation of driving privileges on military installations, including a 14-day window to request a hearing after notice. Although this resembles Indiana's structure, it applies narrowly to military personnel and installations and is not applicable to civilian driver licensing. Indiana's 140 IAC 1-9-5 is unique in explicitly defining the hearing request window, content submission requirement, and automatic stay of suspension. These features are more procedurally detailed than those of other states, which either omit specific timelines or rely on more general administrative frameworks. Indiana's rule guarantees that compliant enterprises are given an objective opportunity to preserve their operational capabilities. Ohio has no statute or administrative rule directly analogous to Indiana's material error review under separate statutory provisions for reviewing and correcting driver-related records. Instead, Ohio relies on general administrative procedure rules and court-jurisdiction mechanisms to correct bureau records. Kentucky provides general administrative appeals and record-correction processes under its Administrative Procedures Act (KRS 13B), but it does not maintain a distinct, statute-backed process tailored for "material errors" in motor vehicle records and does not impose a fixed 30-day response deadline. Illinois permits individuals to challenge the Secretary of State's records through hearings and administrative appeals, but no statute mandates a specific material error review process or imposes an automatic duty to correct records within a set timeframe. Michigan similarly allows drivers to request corrections and utilize administrative appeal procedures. However, it lacks a standalone rule comparable to Indiana's 1-10-1 process, and it does not stipulate a 30-day deadline for record correction once a material error is alleged. Idaho allows motor vehicle record disputes under its general Administrative Procedure Act and title examination procedures but does not grant a separate material error review right under Title 49. No rule requires submission particulars or a defined agency response window. South Dakota also follows its APA framework for administrative hearings and record corrections. However, no statutory provision outlines a dedicated material error process akin to Indiana's, and no timetable is specified for resolving disputes. At the federal level, no direct counterpart to Indiana's process exists in FMCSA or other federal regulations regarding driver or vehicle records. While federal agencies may offer avenues to dispute records, no uniform rule compels a 30-day response to material error requests or provides a form-based review process tied to driving credentials. Indiana's 140 IAC 1-10-1 is distinctive in creating a self-contained mechanism for correcting erroneous motor vehicle or driver records. Other states rely on broader administrative appeals or record amendment processes without dedicated material error pathways, response timelines, or record-specific review rules. Indiana's process offers more direct, standardized redress for individuals challenging incorrect BMV records. An examination of the vehicle registration regulations in Ohio reveals no similar rule prescribing a fixed ten-year lifespan for license plates or limiting their validity by plate type. Ohio statutes and administrative rules focus instead on registration renewal requirements, plates remaining valid contingent on current registration, and replacement processes, without establishing formal maximum plate life-cycles. Kentucky regulations under 603 KAR and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet do not include a rule setting a specific lifespan for license plates. Kentucky's statutes require plate replacement for illegible or damaged plates and tie issuance to registration status, but no administrative rule limits plate use by a specific number of years. In Illinois, Department of Revenue and Secretary of State regulations similarly require plate renewal upon registration renewal or when plates are damaged. However, under the License Plate Replacement Program, which was enacted by the Secretary of State pursuant to their authority under 625 ILCS 5/3-412, Illinois plates must be replaced based on a 10-year rolling calendar. Michigan administrative rules under the Secretary of State govern plate issuance, renewal, and replacement. MCL 257.224 dictates that registrations cannot be renewed if the plate was issued more than 10 years ago. Idaho vehicle registration rules require display of valid plates and renewal stickers, and plates must be replaced if damaged. No regulatory provision limits plate usage to ten years or establishes a life-cycle based on plate type or issuance duration. South Dakota registration rules operate similarly, focusing on current registration validation, plate replacement for damages, and specialty plate issuance. South Dakota statutes do not include a maximum life-cycle for plates determined by the issuing authority. At the federal level, no federal statutes or regulations address license plate lifespans or life-cycle mandates, as license plate issuance and renewal are delegated to state authorities. Indiana's 140 IAC 2-1-14 is not alone among the jurisdictions analyzed in having a maximum of 10 years before plates must be replaced. The explanation for these other states having this limit is for safety concerns. Rather than risk older, degraded plates on the highway that might be unreadable due to the degradation of their reflective coating, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan ensure all plates in use remain fully legible. Given the valid safety concern and the very low cost to replace the plate, Indiana's rule is logical. In Michigan, Michigan Compiled Laws Section 256.623 is equivalent. It explicitly defines terms such as "behind-the-wheel instruction," "classroom instruction," and "driver education provider." In Kentucky, Kentucky Revised Statutes KRS 165A.310 and 501 KAR 3:010 are equivalent. They provide statutory definitions governing proprietary education, specifically defining commercial driver training schools and certified instruction terms. In Illinois, Illinois Administrative Code Title 92, Section 1060.2 is the equivalent. It provides the exact definitions for terms such as "classroom instruction," "behind-the-wheel instruction," and "main school" vs. "branch application." In Ohio, OAC 4501-7-01 is equivalent. It contains legal definitions for terms such as "online driver education," "training manager," "instructor," and "classroom hour." In Idaho, Idaho Administrative Code IDAPA 39.02.03 is the equivalent. It defines the structural requirements for public and private driver's training, curriculum hours, and instructor terminology. In South Dakota, South Dakota Codified Laws SDCL 32-5E-1 and administrative rules under ARSD 61:19 are the equivalent. They cover legal parameters defining authorized commercial driver education courses, instructors, and vehicle requirements. There is no federal equivalent for standard passenger vehicle driver's education. Indiana's rule is in line with all other states. Michigan regulates driver training school licenses under the Driver Education Provider and Instructor Act (MCL 256.631), which is overseen by the Michigan Department of State. To secure a provider license in Michigan, business operators must navigate an application process that mirrors Indiana's rules, requiring the submission of comprehensive national criminal history background checks, proof of an established physical place of business, and documentation verifying a certified curriculum. Illinois implements its licensing framework through Illinois Administrative Code Title 92, Section 1060.10, under the authority of the Illinois Secretary of State. The state mandates that all commercial driving school owners submit fingerprint-based background checks, maintain a fixed commercial office space that cannot be a residential property, provide copies of standard student contracts, and submit verified bond and liability insurance paperwork. Ohio establishes its business credentialing requirements under Ohio Administrative Code OAC 4501-7-04, with enforcement handled by the Ohio Department of Public Safety. Prospective driving school owners in Ohio must file a formal application that includes criminal background records for all principals, an explicit schedule of tuition fees, pre-approved student enrollment contract language, and a passed fire code inspection report for any physical classroom spaces. Kentucky governs commercial driver training school applications through 502 KAR 10:010, which is jointly administered by the Kentucky State Police and the Kentucky Commission on Proprietary Education. To obtain an operational license in Kentucky, applicants must undergo detailed background vetting, supply formal proof of commercial liability insurance, and submit samples of all standard enrollment agreements for state approval. Idaho codifies its commercial driving school requirements within Idaho Administrative Code IDAPA 39.02.03.100, managed directly by the Idaho Transportation Department. School operators must complete a rigorous state licensing process that forces them to submit national fingerprint-based background checks, verify the structural and safety compliance of their physical classrooms, and hand over all student contracts for mandatory state review. South Dakota enforces its driving school certifications under Administrative Rules of South Dakota ARSD 61:19:02, which is monitored by the South Dakota Department of Public Safety. The state requires all commercial driver education programs to gain formal administrative certification, which involves passing background reviews for the business owners, maintaining strict student record-keeping systems, and providing absolute transparency regarding their fee schedules. No federal equivalent exists, as there are no federal licensing standards for passenger car driving schools. Indiana's rule is comparable to each of the analyzed jurisdictions. It is not more or less restrictive and is in line with standards. Indiana Administrative Code 140 IAC 4-1.2-2 sets the comprehensive operational boundaries and code of conduct for driver training schools. Michigan regulates commercial operations under MCL 256.645 and MCL 256.651 through the Michigan Department of State. Examples include prohibiting commercial driving schools from using deceptive names that falsely mimic state agencies, explicitly banning providers from soliciting business or distributing advertising materials within 100 feet of any Secretary of State branch, and strictly forbidding the employment of active department workers. Illinois codifies its operational restrictions within Illinois Administrative Code Title 92, Sections 1060.50 and 1060.190, managed by the Illinois Secretary of State. Examples include making it illegal for schools to operate out of residential housing, severely restricting marketing practices to block misleading pass-rate guarantees, and barring schools from locating or soliciting students within 1,500 feet of any state driver services facility. Ohio enforces its business conduct parameters through Ohio Administrative Code OAC 4501-7-08 under the Ohio Department of Public Safety. Examples include driving schools being unable to use any name resembling the BMV, blocking schools from soliciting students inside or near state testing sites, and facing immediate administrative closure if any records are found to be falsified or altered. Kentucky outlines its day-to-day operational codes under 502 KAR 10:030, overseen by the Kentucky State Police. Kentucky driving schools are banned from using residential areas as public-facing business offices, are prohibited from using names that imply an official relationship with the state and cannot advertise their services using deceptive language or place promotional flyers near state driver licensing locations. Idaho implements its compliance rules via Idaho Administrative Code IDAPA 39.02.03.200, which is monitored by the Idaho Transportation Department. Examples include preventing commercial schools from operating in state buildings, banning any deceptive marketing that hints at a guaranteed driver's license, and imposing immediate license revocation if an operator knowingly assists a student in committing licensing fraud. South Dakota establishes consumer protection and operational rules under Administrative Rules of South Dakota ARSD 61:19:04, administered by the South Dakota Department of Public Safety. Examples include blocking private schools from setting up operations within residential properties, enforcing severe penalties for anyone caught tampering with student completion records, and prohibiting schools from using state logos or implying any formal government alignment in their marketing. There is no federal equivalent. Indiana's rule is in line with analyzed states. In Ohio, driver training schools and online education are regulated under OAC Chapters 4501 and ORC 4508. While these chapters define terms like "abbreviated adult driver training course," "certificate of completion," and instructor qualifications, they do not impose conditional acceptance procedures for online theoretical training tied to school enrollment, age, curriculum approval, or website statements. Kentucky's driver training regulations (502 KAR 10:040 and related statutes) establish facility standards and licensing requirements, but they lack provisions concerning online theory completion or mandated disclosures by providers. Illinois requires licensing for driver training schools and instructors under 625 ILCS 5/6-401 and Title 92 IAC Part 1060, covering contract requirements, vehicle safety, inspections, and curriculum. However, nothing in Illinois law restricts acceptance of online theoretical training based on Indiana-style conditions, nor are online providers required to make specific disclosures. Michigan regulates driver education providers and instructors under Act 384 of 2006 and administrative rules, including curriculum adoption, instructor certification, recordkeeping, and bond. The state does not require conditional acceptance of online theory training, nor does it mandate student enrollment with a licensed school or specific public disclosures about credit eligibility. Idaho governs driver education through the Idaho Transportation Department and Code Section 49-307. These establish in-class and in-car instruction mandates but do not specify rules on acceptance of online theory training or require disclaimers by providers. South Dakota licensing rules outline instructor eligibility requirements (age, training hours, criminal history) and general administrative compliance. The state's laws do not address online theoretical training acceptance, nor do they require any of the school enrollment, approval, or disclosure processes seen in Indiana. There is no federal equivalent as federal rules do not address non-commercial driver training. Indiana's rule, while more specific, is not more restrictive than the analyzed states. Each state has specific rules for their driver education program as it relates to online education. None are identical but all contain the same basic framework. Indiana's rule maintains the clearest framework which makes it the most understandable to citizens. Each of the states examined (Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, South Dakota) has substantially similar rules regarding driver training instructor applications that are neither intrinsically more nor less restrictive. IDAPA 24.25.01. Illinois Administrative Code tit. 92, Section 1060.120. 502 KAR 10:030. MCL 256.637. OAC 4501-7-05. ARSD 24:28:09:21/22/23. There is no federal equivalent. Ohio's instructor rules (OAC 4501-8-05) regulate licensure, background checks, training credentials, and school oversight. While Ohio prohibits providing instruction while under the influence and requires proper licensing, it does not include the same breadth of conduct standards. Thus, Ohio's rules focus more on instructor qualifications than on day-to-day operational requirements. Kentucky, under 502 KAR 10:030 and related provisions, regulates instructor qualifications (age, driving record, training) and prohibits criminal activity or unsafe behavior. However, Kentucky's rules provide a credentialing framework, but not a granular instructor-behavior code as Indiana does. Illinois' 92 IAC Part 1060 includes instructor qualifications, disciplinary authority, and student safety training requirements. Illinois' rules focus heavily on school standards and instructor credentials, not the behavioral and operational limitations seen in Indiana. Michigan's Driver Education Provider and Instructor Act (Act 384 of 2006) requires comprehensive instructor training, background checks, and ongoing reporting. Michigan does include some professional conduct requirements but does not include all of the requirements that Indiana does, such as not expressly requiring instructors to verify a learner's permit before behind-the-wheel instruction. Michigan's rules emphasize training and qualifications, but not Indiana's detailed conduct-based obligations. Idaho's Administrative Code r. 24.25.01.102 provides for similar instructor regulations as in Indiana. There are also teen driver education regulations administered largely through the Department of Education that govern instructor qualifications and background checks. Idaho is less specific but contains many of the same requirements. South Dakota employs statutory criteria for instructor eligibility (age, driving record, background checks), but has no comparable administrative provisions addressing topics such as student permit verification, teaching-hours limit, or limiting instruction to enrolled students only. South Dakota's regulatory requirements are significantly less detailed on day-to-day instructor responsibilities. There is no federal equivalent to Indiana's rule because federal law does not regulate non-CDL driver education. No comparable or equivalent level of detail appears in the examined states or in federal regulations. Other jurisdictions focus primarily on instructor qualification rather than on operational conduct once licensed. Indiana's extra detail regarding operational conduct furthers safety goals. Each of the states examined (Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, South Dakota) has substantially similar rules regarding driver training instructor applications that are neither intrinsically more nor less restrictive. IDAPA 24.25.01. Illinois Administrative Code tit. 92, Section 1060.120. 502 KAR 10:030. MCL 256.637. OAC 4501-7-05. ARSD 24:28:09:21/22/23. There is no federal equivalent. Kentucky, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio have equivalent laws governing fees. Kentucky has 502 KAR 10:030 and KRS 332.204. Idaho has IDAPA 24.25.01.401. Illinois has 625 ILCS 5/6-411. Michigan has MCL 256.629 and MCL 256.641. Ohio has OAC 4501-7-04 and OAC 4501-7-05. South Dakota does not have a direct regulatory fee equivalent. Federal law does not regulate instructor licensing fees in any way. As such, Indiana's rule is in line with most jurisdictions. Michigan maintains a direct statutory equivalent under MCL 256.665, which outlines the parameters for the suspension, revocation, or denial of a driver education provider or instructor license. Similar to Indiana's framework, the Michigan Department of State has full authority to cancel a credential if a school submits fraudulent data, fails a mechanical vehicle inspection, or violates traffic laws. The primary difference is that Michigan features an automated suspension mechanism that triggers instantly if an instructor's personal driving record accumulates more than six active demerit points or receives a driving-under-the-influence conviction. Illinois codifies its enforcement guidelines within 625 ILCS 5/6-420 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, giving the Illinois Secretary of State sweeping powers to cancel, suspend, or revoke commercial training licenses. This law closely mirrors Indiana's rules regarding record falsification, failing to maintain proper operational standards, and refusing to comply with Department audits. However, a major structural difference is that Illinois incorporates mandatory minimum suspension lengths into the statute, meaning an operator caught training students without valid liability insurance faces an automatic 30-day operational freeze. Ohio outlines its administrative penalties within Ohio Administrative Code OAC 4501-7-21, which gives the Ohio Department of Public Safety direct authority to issue formal warnings, suspensions, or permanent revocations. Ohio shares Indiana's strict stance on audit compliance, making the refusal to grant access for an unannounced inspection an immediate ground for license suspension. The notable difference lies in Ohio's permanent revocation triggers, which automatically terminate a teaching license without the possibility of a temporary suspension if an instructor is convicted of any felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. Kentucky establishes its disciplinary protocol under 502 KAR 10:080, which is actively enforced by the Kentucky State Police. The similarities to Indiana are found in the state's power to freeze certifications for administrative non-compliance, financial fraud, or running structurally unsafe instructional vehicles. Kentucky separates itself from Indiana's warning system by granting state troopers the authority to issue a localized cease-and-desist order, which legally halts all behind-the-wheel instruction on public roads before an official administrative board hearing is scheduled. Idaho handles professional discipline under Idaho Code Section 54-5408, which is governed by the state's Driving Businesses Licensure Board. It aligns closely with Indiana's framework by allowing the state to strip licensing credentials if a private school fails to adhere to mandated curriculum guidelines or provides deceptive info during renewal. The primary difference stems from Idaho processing these credentials through an occupational professional board, which permits the state to levy administrative fines of up to $1,000 per violation in tandem with suspending the license. South Dakota does not have an equivalent statute or administrative. No federal regulation covers school or instructor license discipline. Indiana's approach remains within the standard range of state regulatory practice. Michigan establishes its driving school vehicle insurance mandates under MCL 256.629 of the Driver Education Provider and Instructor Act. While it functions exactly like Indiana's rule by requiring continuous proof of financial responsibility for every school vehicle, Michigan mandates significantly higher liability minimums. To secure a school license, providers must maintain a minimum policy of $500,000 for bodily injury or death of one person, $1,000,000 for injury to multiple persons, and $100,000 for property damage. Illinois codifies its driving school vehicle financial requirements under 625 ILCS 5/6-402. Similar to Indiana, Illinois forces business owners to provide a formal certificate of insurance for every vehicle. However, Illinois sets its minimum thresholds lower than Indiana, requiring liability limits of at least $50,000 per person for bodily injury, $100,000 per occurrence for multiple injuries, and $10,000 for property damage. Ohio outlines its driver training school insurance thresholds within OAC 4501-7-08. Ohio's law perfectly mirrors Indiana's structure by requiring coverage for bodily injury, death, and property damage. Driving schools in Ohio must maintain minimum liability coverage of $100,000 per person, $300,000 per crash, and $25,000 for property damage. Kentucky establishes its driver training vehicle insurance mandates under KRS 332.204. Like Indiana, the rule blocks a school from obtaining an active operator's credential unless they provide a certificate of insurance for their vehicle inventory. Kentucky sets its baseline limits at $25,000 for individual bodily injury, $50,000 for multi-person injury, and $10,000 for property damage. Idaho addresses driving business insurance compliance under IDAPA 24.25.01.100.04. Similar to Indiana, Idaho requires active business operators to supply a certificate of insurance verifying continuous liability coverage on all instructional vehicles. Idaho requires coverage of at least $250,000 per person, $500,000 per accident, and $250,000 for property damage. They also allow a combined single-limit (CSL) commercial auto policy of at least $500,000 per accident covering bodily injury, death, and property damage concurrently. South Dakota contains no equivalent rule or financial threshold within its state statutes because the South Dakota Department of Public Safety does not license, track, or regulate commercial passenger-car driving schools. Private individuals operating instructional businesses in South Dakota are only bound by the state's basic personal financial responsibility limits found under standard motor vehicle laws, with no heightened insurance mandates required for instructing students. This means SDCL 32-35-70 governs and requires $25,000 for individual injury, $50,000 for group injury, and $25,000 for property damage. There is no federal law equivalent as federal law does not govern driving schools. Indiana's rule is in line with the other examined states. Comparable audit and recordkeeping requirements exist in Idaho (IDAPA 24.25.01), Illinois (92 Ill. Admin. Code 1060.60), Kentucky (791 KAR 1:080), Michigan (MCL 256.665), and Ohio (OAC 4501-7-13). South Dakota does not have an equivalent requirement, and neither does any federal law due to no federal regulations existing regarding driving schools. 49 CFR 380, which only covers commercial driver's license schools, requires similar audit and recordkeeping. Indiana's standards remain aligned with typical state-level education oversight. All example states have equivalent laws or regulations regarding the right to appeal denial, revocation, or suspension of an owner's or instructor's license. Kentucky (KRS 13B); Illinois (92 Ill. Admin. Code 1001); Michigan (MCL 24.201); Ohio (ORC 119); Idaho (IC 67-5200); South Dakota (SDCL 1-26). There is no federal equivalent as driver education and licensing is handled by states. All example states have substantially similar waiver provisions. Kentucky provides a comparable hardship exception under KRS 159.051, which allows the Transportation Cabinet to issue a restricted license to individuals who are at least 15 years old under a medical or family emergency framework. Illinois addresses underage hardship privileges through 625 ILCS 5/6-107, establishing a restricted local permit system managed by the Secretary of State. The core similarity to Indiana is the recognition of severe financial or medical necessity within a household that lacks alternative transit. Michigan handles these exceptions under MCL 257.312, which establishes the framework for a restricted minor's license. Michigan's law is structurally narrower than Indiana's broad medical-and-financial language, focusing primarily on minors who are at least 14 years old and need to operate a vehicle for family farming operations or to travel directly to and from school where no school busing exists. Ohio implements its hardship provisions under ORC 4507.08, allowing the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to issue a restricted license based on severe family health or extreme occupational necessity. Idaho manages this unique licensing path through Idaho Code 49-305, which governs the issuance of a restricted "school bundle" or family hardship permit for minors between the ages of 14 and 16. South Dakota regulates underage driving exceptions under SDCL 32-12-4.3, which establishes a highly formalized restricted minor's permit and a separate agricultural permit. No federal requirement governs this process. Indiana's program remains within normative state-level practice. All example states have substantially similar rules concerning driver training standards and driver training vehicle standards. Kentucky (601 KAR 13:110 and 502 KAR 10:070); Illinois (Ill. Admin. Code tit. 92 1060:180 and Ill. Admin. Code tit. 92, pt. 438, app H); Michigan (MCL 256.657, MCL 256.659, and MCL 256.651); Ohio (OAC 4501-7-09, OAC 4501-7-10, and OAC 4501-7-14); Idaho (IDAPA 24.25.01); South Dakota (SDCL 32-12-4). There is no federal equivalent because states handle their own state driver's license education and testing. All example states have substantially similar rules concerning driver training standards. Kentucky (601 KAR 13:110); Illinois (Ill. Admin. Code tit. 92 1060:180); Michigan (MCL 256.657 and MCL 256.659); Ohio (OAC 4501-7-09 and OAC 4501-7-10); Idaho (IDAPA 24.25.01); South Dakota (SDCL 32-12-4). There is no federal equivalent because states handle their own state driver's license education and testing. Kentucky structures its student proficiency standards through the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and 601 KAR 13:110, matching Indiana's demand for passing scores across all operational course phases. However, Kentucky introduces a major procedural departure from Indiana regarding the road test waiver itself. While passing an approved high school or commercial driver training course in Indiana allows a student to bypass the BMV road exam entirely, completing Kentucky's 4-hour state-mandated Graduate Driver Licensing (GDL) safety program or a commercial course only satisfies the state's mandatory educational requirement. In Kentucky, passing the school course does not grant a road exam waiver; every single teen applicant must still physically pass a live skills test administered directly by the Kentucky State Police. Illinois establishes its course grading and completion criteria under 92 Illinois Administrative Code 1060.180, implementing a highly regulated verification system under the Secretary of State. Similar to Indiana, Illinois requires a student to receive passing marks in both classroom theory and in-car practice blocks to receive an official Certificate of Completion. The core similarity deepens because Illinois allows students who graduate with an "A" or "B" average in a high-school-administered driver education course to qualify for a cooperative driver testing waiver, allowing them to skip the state's DMV road exam. Illinois monitors this closely during school audits by requiring specific numerical test averages to be recorded on the student's physical ledger sheet. Michigan governs course passing standards through MCL 256.655, tying strict grade metrics directly to its multi-segment licensing structure. To graduate from Michigan's "Segment 1" program, a student must not only pass the classroom and behind-the-wheel phases as mandated in Indiana, but they must also score a minimum of 70% on a highly specific, state-certified 80-question written examination. Furthermore, Michigan does not offer a blanket road test waiver upon course graduation; instead, all graduates are legally forced to take a separate, third-party skills test once they log their independent practice hours, creating a multi-tiered evaluation process that is completely decoupled from the school's internal course grading. Ohio dictates its curriculum completion and grading rules under OAC 4501-7-09, establishing an exact procedural match to Indiana's dual-passing requirement. An Ohio student must pass a minimum of 24 hours of classroom instruction and 8 hours of behind-the-wheel training with a score of 75% or higher on the final written examination. A major difference in Ohio is the treatment of the final road test; Ohio does not grant a state road exam waiver to commercial driving school graduates. Passing the commercial course simply unlocks the legal right to book a formal, state-administered DMV road examination once the minor turns 16. Idaho administers its grading guidelines through IDAPA 24.25.01. Mirroring Indiana, Idaho requires a student to successfully navigate both the 30-hour academic syllabus and the 6-hour physical driving log to get their permit formally stamped for solo practice. Idaho's framework differs because the state operates an integrated public-school and commercial testing matrix. If a student passes an approved Idaho public school driver education course, certain local school districts are authorized to administer a synchronized skills test that functions as a state waiver. South Dakota regulates course completion parameters under SDCL 32-12-12. Because South Dakota features a highly accelerated minor licensing system, its grading and waiver rule is the most impactful among the compared states. If a 14-year-old student passes both the classroom and behind-the-wheel components of an approved course with a grade of 80% or higher, South Dakota grants an absolute waiver of both the state's written knowledge exam and the live DMV road test. There is no federal equivalent due to states being responsible for driver testing and licensure, not the federal government. Indiana is in line with example states and its rule is substantially similar in function. Kentucky manages its expired license rules under 601 KAR 12:020, implementing a less forgiving timeline than Indiana for long-term expirations. In Kentucky, if a standard operator's license has been expired for more than one year, the state completely waives any mid-tier written-only track and forces the applicant to retake both the written knowledge test and the live road skills test alongside the baseline vision check. Illinois dictates its re-testing parameters under 625 ILCS 5/6-109. Unlike Indiana's rule, which leaves drivers unpenalized by written exams for up to six months, Illinois requires any driver whose license has been expired for more than one year to automatically retake the written screening. Michigan handles delinquent operator credentials through MCL 257.09. Michigan's timeline is structurally aligned with Kentucky but significantly tighter than Indiana's, enforcing a strict one-year cliff. If a Michigan license is expired for less than one year, the state allows a basic renewal with standard fees. Ohio structures its examination rules for expired licenses under ORC 4507.10. Ohio mandates that if an operator's license has been expired for more than six months but less than one year, the applicant must take the written test and vision test. If the license is one year or more expired, the state automatically activates a total restoration rule, requiring the individual to successfully pass the vision screening, the written regulations exam, and the physical maneuverability and road test. This creates a much narrower compliance window than Indiana. Idaho administers its license expiration penalties through Idaho Code 49-319. Idaho requires retaking knowledge and skills tests if the license has been expired for 25 months or more. If under this threshold, no retesting is required. South Dakota regulates its delinquent renewal requirements under SDCL 32-12-42. South Dakota waives retaking the tests for all renewals no later than 30 days after expiration. Retesting is required for renewals of licenses 31 days or more beyond the expiration date. There is no federal equivalent because the federal government does not regulate state driver's licenses or the testing for them. Indiana is in line with the example states. All example states have substantially similar rules concerning expired out-of-state driver's license transfers. Kentucky (601 KAR 12:020 and KRS 186.480); Illinois (625 ILCS 5/6-109); Michigan (MCL 257.09); Ohio (ORC 4507.10); Idaho (Idaho Code 49-319); South Dakota (SDCL 32-12-42). There is no federal equivalent because states handle their own state driver's license education and testing. Indiana's rule is consistent with such frameworks. Kentucky regulates this automotive reconstruction pipeline under KRS 186A.520 and KRS 186A.530, creating a strict protocol that departs from Indiana's flexible sale rule. Kentucky completely bars the transfer or registration of a vehicle for highway use until a fresh "Rebuilt" title has been officially processed and issued by the state. Furthermore, Kentucky does not restrict its baseline salvage mandate to a rolling seven-model-year window; instead, any vehicle damaged to the extent that the cost of repairs exceeds 75% of its fair market value must be branded as salvage, regardless of its chronological age. Illinois governs the salvage-to-rebuilt conversion under 625 ILCS 5/3-301 and 92 Illinois Administrative Code 1010, implementing an aggressive anti-theft vetting program. In sharp contrast to Indiana's self-certified affidavit of restoration path, Illinois legally mandates that any vehicle holding a salvage certificate must pass a rigorous, physical inspection conducted by authorized state technicians at a designated Secretary of State salvage inspection station before it can ever secure a rebuilt title. Illinois completely bans individuals from selling a rebuilt vehicle on an open salvage title to a retail buyer, forcing the rebuilder to first clear the state inspection and hold a branded "Rebuilt" title in their own name prior to vehicle assignment. Michigan handles salvage and rebuilt branding through Section 257.217c of the Michigan Vehicle Code. Michigan's law aligns with Indiana by utilizing a targeted age metric, but it applies a slightly broader standard by capturing vehicles manufactured within the current model year or the 5 prior model years (or any vehicle with a pre-damage value over $8,000). The operational execution is much more restrictive than Indiana's rule, as Michigan requires all restored salvage vehicles to undergo a comprehensive physical inspection by a specially certified police officer who must verify every structural part invoice. The state-certified law enforcement inspection form must be formally submitted to the Secretary of State to update the master digital title brand before a legal sale can occur. Ohio dictates its salvage restoration metrics under Ohio Revised Code 4505.11, enforcing a comprehensive multi-step system that strictly controls the chain of custody. Ohio mirrors Indiana's intent to track heavily damaged newer inventory but drops any rolling seven-year exception, mandating a salvage brand for any vehicle where the total repair estimate exceeds 80% of its wholesale value. To transition from a salvage document to a "Rebuilt Salvage" title, Ohio requires the vehicle to be physically towed to an official Ohio State Highway Patrol salvage inspection facility. Ohio completely blocks the fluid, non-inspected transfer of un-titled rebuilt hulls permitted under Indiana's administrative framework. Idaho manages this titling framework through Idaho Code 49-524 and 49-525. Idaho's statutory definition of a salvage vehicle relies strictly on a structural economic threshold, completely bypassing Indiana's specific seven-model-year age limitation. When it comes to reconstruction, Idaho aligns with the majority of example states rather than Indiana by requiring a physical vehicle identification number (VIN) inspection and a formal statement of repair. The Idaho Department of Transportation will not permit a buyer to register or operate a vehicle that has merely been handed down with a salvage certificate and a loose affidavit, requiring a clean administrative title conversion at a county DMV branch beforehand. South Dakota outlines its salvage title and reconstruction mandates under South Dakota Codified Laws Chapter 32-3 and ARSD 61:12. South Dakota mandates a salvage title for any vehicle that is less than seven model years old if the total damage sustained exceeds 70% of its retail value. The rebuilder must complete a highly detailed "Scrap and Salvage Vehicle Affidavit," itemizing the source of all major components, and submit the vehicle to a localized titling agent. While South Dakota does allow for the transfer of salvage documents between licensed dealers, an average consumer cannot legally operate a vehicle on a standard highway if the underlying title asset remains in a salvage state, regardless of any loose restoration affidavits provided at the point of sale. There is no federal equivalent as the titling of salvage and rebuilt motor vehicles is completely managed by individual states rather than the federal government. Indiana's rule is in line with the example states. Kentucky has no equivalent law or specialized restriction for an intoxicated appearance. Instead, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet relies on its Medical Review Board to evaluate general driving fitness. While Indiana proactively protects drivers from law enforcement misunderstandings, Kentucky focuses strictly on whether a driver requires standard adaptive equipment or functional restrictions to operate a vehicle safely. Idaho handles driver medical conditions strictly through its Idaho Transportation Department Medical/Vision Unit. It lacks any formal designation or license indicator to explain symptoms like slurred speech or tremors to an officer. Drivers in Idaho are evaluated solely on functional capacity to drive, meaning medical documentation is filed internally with the DMV rather than carried in the vehicle as it is in Indiana. Illinois addresses medical fitness through the Secretary of State's Medical Advisory Board rather than offering a protective law for visual symptoms. The state enforces strict mandatory reporting laws for conditions causing lapses of consciousness but does not feature an equivalent to Indiana's "Restriction 8." The Illinois framework focuses entirely on whether a driver is medically "fit to drive" rather than managing how those symptoms look to a police officer. Michigan uses its Driver Assessment Section to handle medical re-examinations, prioritizing post-incident or reported safety concerns over proactive protections. Michigan does not issue a specific license indicator for conditions that mimic intoxication. Unlike Indiana's requirement to carry active physician paperwork, Michigan drivers clear their medical status internally with the state, and the details are tied electronically to their master driving record. Ohio utilizes a general "Restriction G" (Medical) designation on licenses, managed by the Ohio BMV and its Medical Advisory Board. However, this restriction is a broad category and does not explicitly or legally excuse an intoxicated appearance to law enforcement. While Ohio requires medical forms to approve a license, it does not share Indiana's mandate for drivers to carry fresh, physical physician certificates in the cabin. South Dakota manages driver safety through standard medical review forms submitted to the South Dakota Department of Public Safety. The state relies entirely on a physician's baseline statement confirming that a patient can safely operate a motor vehicle. It features no equivalent law, specific license indicator, or mandatory carry rule to address conditions that simulate alcohol or drug impairment. There is no direct federal law equivalent. Driver's licensing is entirely managed by individual states. Therefore, rules for medical conditions are set by each state. Kentucky operates under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) § 186.442. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet provides a temporary operator's license that is valid for 30 days. A key similarity is the operational duration. However, Kentucky's statutory language focuses entirely on post-application verification and lacks Indiana's specific administrative provisions for technical system backups or remote out-of-state loss. Idaho governs these temporary credentials under Idaho Statutes § 49-305. The Idaho Transportation Department issues a temporary paper document valid for 30 days while it completes background investigations and determinations of fact. Idaho matches Indiana's 30-day timeline exactly. Operationally, Idaho prints these on secure paper with ultraviolet fibers to act as a stand-alone identity record in compliance with local sheriff standards. Illinois establishes its authority under Illinois Administrative Code Title 92, § 1030.89. The Secretary of State may issue a temporary driver's license or instruction permit. The primary difference is that the Illinois permit is valid for up to 90 days, significantly longer than Indiana's 30-day limit. Illinois explicitly dictates that the paper temporary permit becomes automatically invalid the moment the permanent driver's license is received. Michigan addresses temporary operator documents under Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) § 257.310(12). The Secretary of State may issue a temporary driver's permit valid for up to 60 days while the permanent license is processed. This duration splits the difference between Indiana's 30 days and Illinois's 90 days. Michigan's statute explicitly allows the Secretary of State to extend this temporary window if necessary to accommodate federal background check processing delays. Ohio issues interim forms under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) § 4507.11 and Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 4501:1-1. Known as an Interim Documentation form, it remains valid for up to 45 days. While highly similar to Indiana because it permits full driving privileges during the manufacturing window, Ohio requires the driver to pass all necessary vision and physical fitness exams prior to the validation of the interim document, meaning it cannot be extended loosely without record compliance. South Dakota dictates this mechanism under South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL) § 32-12-19. The Department of Public Safety issues a temporary permit allowing vehicle operation while completing records determination. A major similarity is that if an applicant fails a baseline test during renewal but has a valid history, SDCL § 32-12-18 mandates a 30-day temporary extension, mirroring Indiana's 30-day window. Federal law permits temporary or limited-term driver's licenses under 6 CFR Part 37.21. However, the issuance of driver's licenses is left to the states, so no true federal equivalent exists. Indiana's rule is in line with the example states' equivalents. Four of the example states (Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio) have a substantially similar rule that accomplishes the same purpose as Indiana's rule. Idaho (Idaho Code 49-306); Kentucky (KRS 186.531); Michigan (MCL 257.309 and MCL 257.811a); Ohio (ORC 4507.23). Two of the example states (Illinois and South Dakota) have rules that detail costs for obtaining a license but do not dictate costs for testing fees via statute or rule. Illinois (625 ILCS 5/6-118); South Dakota (32-12-11.1). There is no federal equivalent as the licensing of motorcycle drivers is a state matter. No federal law licenses motorcycle drivers. Indiana's rule is in line with most example states. Federal CDL program standards also require that CDL holders possess no more than one valid license under 49 CFR Part 383. All example states have similar rules to Indiana's: Idaho (Idaho Code 39-301); Illinois (625 ILCS 5/6-501); Kentucky (KRS 281A.060 and 601 KAR 11:050); Michigan (MCL 257.301); Ohio (ORC 4507.02); South Dakota (SDCL 32-12A-3). There is no indication that surrounding states impose less restrictive standards in these areas, and the rule continues to align with commonly accepted commercial licensing practices. Kentucky regulates third-party examiners under 502 KAR 10:110. It mirrors Indiana's three-year commercial driving experience threshold. Kentucky also operates on a four-year renewal cycle but adds that examiners must undergo an annual state-administered background and driver record check to keep their active status, whereas Indiana primarily relies on a 30-day pre-expiration re-application protocol. An age requirement of at least 21 years, as in Indiana, is established by KRS 165A.475. Idaho governs skills test examiners under Idaho Code 49-314. Idaho's law incorporates by reference 49 CFR part 383, and as such it follows the same rules as the federal guidelines. Illinois outlines CDL skills test examiners Illinois Administrative Code Title 92, Section 1060. The Secretary of State administers these rules, matching Idaho by requiring a lower two-year CDL baseline. The main operational difference from Indiana is that Illinois heavily limits third-party examining permissions to educational institutions or government employers, meaning private commercial driver schools face a much tighter regulatory review to certify their staff compared to Indiana's broader third-party framework. Michigan establishes third-party testing parameters under Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) § 257.312f. Because Michigan law bans the Secretary of State from doing direct testing, its third-party system is massive. Michigan aligns closely with Indiana by requiring examiners to have a minimum of three years of clean CDL operation. The primary difference is that Michigan mandates that third-party testing organizations hold a $5,000 surety bond per examiner site, an extra financial layer not tied directly to Indiana's individual examiner qualification section. Ohio utilizes OAC 4501-47-03 to govern its third-party examiners, as well as ORC 4506.09 which incorporates by reference 49 CFR part 383. Ohio mirrors Indiana's three-year experience rule and four-year max term limits. Examiners are legally barred from testing any driver who received their CDL training from that same examiner, a strict federal anti-conflict rule that both states aggressively enforce during administrative audits. South Dakota codifies its examiner rules within ARSD 61:25. The South Dakota Department of Public Safety grants certifications that align with federal safety parameters for up to four years. Similar to Idaho and Illinois, South Dakota only requires a two-year history of commercial driving experience, making it easier for younger or newer transport professionals to transition into examiner roles than it is under Indiana's three-year requirement. At the federal level, 49 CFR 384.228 sets the exact, mandatory baseline requirements that every state must adopt for its CDL test examiners. It mandates that all skills test examiners pass a curriculum covering vehicle inspection, basic control skills, road tests, score sheet execution, and safety administration protocols. It also explicitly dictates that examiners must successfully complete refresher training and an examination at least once every 4 years to hold onto their certification., as well as requires states to execute a comprehensive criminal background check at the time of an examiner's hiring, with a zero-tolerance policy for felony convictions involving fraud or severe moving violations. 49 CFR 383.75 dictates how states must handle and regulate third-party (non-government) examiners specifically. This mandates that third-party examiners must utilize the exact same test versions, scoring sheets, and written instructions as state-employed examiners, as well as the requirement that states are required to perform an on-site evaluation of third-party testing facilities at least once every 2 years. It also establishes that the state must revoke the certification of any third-party examiner who fails to successfully conduct skills tests for at least 10 different applicants per calendar year. Indiana's rule is in line with all example states, as well as the federal equivalent. There is no indication Indiana is more restrictive than other states. Federal CDL program standards under 49 CFR 384 and 49 CFR 383 require that states must maintain a formal framework to decertify and revoke any skills examiner that fails to complete required refresher courses, fails to maintain a clean personal driving record, or engages in fraudulent testing activities. All example states have similar rules to Indiana's in compliance with federal regulations: Idaho (Idaho Code 49-314); Illinois (92 Ill. Admin. Code. 1060.120); Kentucky (502 KAR 10:110); Michigan (MCL 257.312f); Ohio (OAC 4501-47-03); South Dakota (SDCL 32-12A and ARSD 61:25). There is no indication that surrounding states impose less restrictive standards in these areas, and the rule continues to align with commonly accepted commercial licensing practices. 49 CFR 383.31 requires any commercial motor vehicle operator convicted of violating any state or local law relating to motor vehicle traffic control must notify the issuing state of their license of that conviction within 30 days of the conviction. In addition, it requires notifying their employer in the same time frame. All example states have similar rules to Indiana's in compliance with federal regulations: Idaho (Idaho Code 49-336); Illinois (625 ILCS 5/6-518); Kentucky (601 KAR 11:050); Michigan (MCL 257.319b); Ohio (ORC 4506.18); South Dakota (SDCL 32-12A and ARSD 61:25). There is no indication that surrounding states impose less restrictive standards in these areas, and the rule continues to align with commonly accepted commercial licensing practices. Five of the example states use similar emergency contact databases in their driver licensing systems, and Indiana's rule aligns with this regional norm without exceeding legal boundaries. Idaho (Idaho Code 49-245); Illinois (625 ILCS 5/6-117,2); Kentucky (2019 Kentucky Acts Chapter 134 (HB 134 / HB 31)); Michigan (MCL 257.310); Ohio (ORC 4501.81). South Dakota does not have an equivalent registry, nor does a federal equivalent exist. Indiana's rule is in line with most of the example states. In Kentucky, there is no direct equivalent to Indiana's rule. Instead, Kentucky relies on general collection statutes, such as KRS 514.040 or KRS 30A.260. If a driver's check or credit card is rejected, Kentucky law authorizes a standard administrative collection fee. Similar to Indiana, if the payment was used to secure a vehicle registration or title, the KYTC works alongside local county clerks to place an immediate administrative hold or revocation on the vehicle's profile. This block stops the owner from renewing any state credentials until the original debt and the state's bad-check processing penalties are fully settled. In Idaho, the equivalent framework is under Idaho Code § 49-202, which details the general powers of the department to cancel credentials. If an applicant provides a dishonored payment, Idaho law gives the ITD the right to immediately cancel the driver's license or vehicle registration ab initio (as if it were never issued). Idaho matches Indiana's rule by generating an automated collection file and sending a formal notice to the driver's address on record, giving them a strict statutory window to pay the balance plus state-mandated return processing fees before field law enforcement is notified of an invalid plate or license. In Illinois, the notification and suspension process for bounced payments is codified under 625 ILCS 5/3-704. If a financial institution reports a dishonored check or credit card to the SOS, the state will issue an immediate Order of Suspension for the affected vehicle registration or driver's license. To lift the suspension, Illinois requires the driver to pay the original amount, a high state-level bounced check fee, and an additional reinstatement fee, creating a multi-layered financial penalty. In Michigan, the equivalent procedure for rejected payments is written into the Michigan Vehicle Code under MCL 257.234 and general Department of State operational guidelines. When a payment to the Michigan Secretary of State fails, the department creates an internal collection profile matching Indiana's system. Michigan law explicitly details that any title or registration transfer processed via a bad check becomes void, and the state can actively issue an administrative cancellation. If the debt remains unpaid, the outstanding balance is flagged against the individual's master driving record, blocking all future online or kiosk transactions across the state. In Ohio, the handling of dishonored payments is established under ORC 4503.102 and OAC 4501:1-7-07. Ohio mirrors Indiana's 140 IAC 8-3-29 by dictating a uniform administrative framework for its network of local deputy registrars. If an electronic check or credit card is charged back, the Ohio BMV establishes a formal collection file and sends a warning notice. Ohio's unique variance is its strict integration with the Automated Title Processing System (ATPS); a bounced payment for a title immediately locks the vehicle's electronic lien record, preventing the owner from legally selling or transferring the car to any third party until the BMV clears the bad debt. In South Dakota, the equivalent framework for rejected DMV payments is executed under SDCL 1-8-13. This law permits the Secretary of State to collect fees for payments made and returned due to insufficient funds. No federal equivalent exists, as the federal government does not handle state payments. Indiana's rule is in line with the other jurisdictions. Kentucky does not have an equivalent rule. While Kentucky does have waiting periods in the same manner as Indiana's rule, these are not established by administrative rule. KRS 186.480 provides Kentucky State Police the authority to dictate the terms and rules of driver testing. KSP elected to provide these waiting periods in the Kentucky Driver Manual. Kentucky requires applicants to wait one week after failing. Similarly, Idaho does not have an equivalent rule. Idaho has a three-day waiting period after failed attempts. This rule is an administrative mandate enforced by the executive branch pursuant to their authority under Idaho Code 49-313. Illinois establishes strict limits under 92 Ill. Admin. Code Section 1030.86. Illinois allows for a second attempt after failing either the written or road test the same day of the initial failure. A third attempt is not allowed on the same day. Six failures require a medical report form before a seventh attempt. Michigan does not have any rule that establishes limits in the manner of Indiana's rule. Michigan does not allow retaking of failed written or skills exams the same day as the failure. Applicants have three attempts within 90 days to pass the written exam. If three fails occur, they must wait 30 days before restarting. There is no limit on the number of attempts for the skills exam. These rules are formalized in the state's Driving Skills Test Study Guide, under the authority of MCL 257.309. Ohio's OAC 4501:1-1-11 establishes exam failure procedures similar to Indiana. Written test attempts are limited to one per day. Skills exam failures require waiting at least two days before retaking. South Dakota's SDCL 32-12-2 establishes a strict three attempt limit within 6 months of application for a driver's license. No waiting period between attempts is established by code, but a 24-hour waiting period is followed. There is no federal equivalent. While Indiana and Illinois are the only strictly codified states, all states follow a very similar framework. As such, Indiana's rule is in line with other jurisdictions. While federal law under 33 CFR 173.27 mandates display of motorboat registration numbers, it does not prescribe a specific format, leaving format decisions to states. Indiana's chosen format is consistent with federal display requirements and aligns with best practices among other states using structured alphanumeric codes. Idaho (Idaho Code Section 67-7008); Illinois (625 ILCS 45/3-1); Kentucky (301 KAR 6:010); Michigan (MCL 324.80122); Ohio (ORC 1547.57); South Dakota (SDCL 32-3A-3). The referenced federal regulation, 33 CFR 173.27, is the nationwide standard for motorboat number display. Surrounding states utilize the same federal standard. Indiana's adoption of this federal requirement therefore ensures uniformity and avoids creating a more restrictive or divergent regulatory scheme. There is no indication that neighboring jurisdictions impose less restrictive requirements, nor any reason to modify Indiana's alignment with federal norms. Idaho (Idaho Code Section 67-7008); Illinois (625 ILCS 45/3-1); Kentucky (301 KAR 6:010); Michigan (MCL 324.80122); Ohio (ORC 1547.57); South Dakota (SDCL 32-3A-3). All example jurisdictions have similar rules and regulations to Indiana's 140 IAC 9-4-6.5. There is no indication that neighboring jurisdictions impose less restrictive requirements. Idaho (Idaho Code Section 67-7008); Illinois (625 ILCS 45/3-1); Kentucky (301 KAR 6:010); Michigan (MCL 324.80122 and MCL 324.80124); Ohio (ORC 1547.57); South Dakota (SDCL 32-3A-3).

X. Previous Amendments

The rule was originally adopted in 2008, then subsequently readopted without changes in 2014 and again in 2020. 140 IAC 1-7-2 was originally adopted in 1983. It was readopted in 2001 and again in 2007. It was amended in 2008 to clarify language, as well as to add a new subsection (5) which required administrators to provide master lists to the bureau. In addition, subsections (b), (c), and (d) were added to allow the commissioner to determine whether to approve a request for self-insurance, require the commissioner to issue a self-insurance certificate to approved individuals, and dictate certificates must be renewed January 2 of each year, respectively. This amended version was readopted without change in 2014 and again in 2020. The rule was originally filed in 1983, with subsequent readoptions and minor technical updates. It was readopted in 2001 and 2007. It was amended in 2008 to slightly adjust language without altering the substance of the rule. It was readopted again in 2014 and then amended in 2017 to increase the collateral requirement for the first vehicle from $40,000 to $50,000. It was readopted without change in 2020. The rule was originally adopted in 1983. It was readopted in 2001 and again in 2007. It was amended without substantive change and only for language edits in 2008, then subsequently readopted in 2014 and 2020. The rule was originally adopted in 1983 and was subsequently readopted in 2001 and again in 2007. It was amended in 2008 to update language without altering the substance of the rule. It was readopted in 2014 and again in 2020. Originally adopted in1983, the rule has been readopted in 2001, 2007, 2008, 2014, and 2020. It was amended in 2008 to adjust language, but no substantive amendments have altered the core requirements. The rule was originally adopted in 1983. It was readopted in 2001 and 2007. It was amended in 2008 for minor language updates that did not alter the rule's substance. It was readopted in 2014 and again in 2020. The rule's core provisions have remained substantively consistent. This rule was originally adopted in 2014, readopted in 2021, then amended in 2022 to update language and remove outdated Indiana Code references. There have been no substantive changes to the rule since its initial adoption. This rule was originally adopted in 2014, readopted in 2021, then amended in 2022 to update language and remove outdated Indiana Code references. There have been no substantive changes to the rule since its initial adoption. The rule was originally adopted in 2014, readopted in 2021, then amended in 2022 for minor language updates and to remove outdated Indiana Code references. The rule maintains the same procedural framework established at adoption. The rule was originally adopted in 2014, readopted in 2021, then amended in 2022 for minor language updates and to remove outdated Indiana Code references. The rule maintains the same procedural framework established at adoption. This rule has not been amended. It was originally filed in 2022. This rule was originally adopted in 2008 and was readopted in 2014. The rule was amended in 2015 to extend the life cycle of plates by default from five years to seven years. It was amended again in 2017 to separate license plate categories to allow them to have their life cycles determined by the commissioner independently of the other categories, as well as to provide that plates deemed permanent do not have a fixed life cycle. It was amended again in 2022 to extend the life cycle of plates by default from seven years to ten years. 140 IAC 4-1.1-1 was originally filed in 2014. It was readopted without change in 2020. It was readopted in 2022 with minor wording changes; "classroom training" was removed and replaced with "theoretical training" with both sharing substantively the same definition. 140 IAC 4-1.2-1 was adopted in 2014 and readopted without change in 2020. The rule was originally filed in 2014. It was readopted in 2020 and amended in 2022 only to change wording without altering meaning or the substance of the rule. 140 IAC 4-1.2-3 was initially filed November 25, 2014. It was readopted in 2020. It was amended in 2022 without substantive change, only replacing "classroom" with "theoretical" throughout the rule. This rule was initially filed November 25, 2014. It was later amended in 2019, which altered the requirement for 60 semester credit hours under (g) to 51 credit hours, and also added the option to complete a BMV-approved instructor training program and 20 hours of behind-the-wheel training to comply with (g). Another amendment occurred in 2022. This second amendment removed the application requirement to provide two letters from unrelated blood relatives to show good moral character under (a); allowed persons to apply to be instructors only for theoretical training under (b); reduced the number of documents that needed to be supplied to renew an instructor's license under (c); increased the length of time one needs to have held a valid driver's license from one year to three years in order to receive an instructor's license under (g); and changed "ten or more points under the points system" causing automatic denial of an instructor's license application to "more than two moving offenses in a twelve month period immediately prior to the application" under (j). 140 IAC 4-1.3-2 was originally filed on November 25, 2014. It was readopted on September 3, 2020. It was then amended in 2022 to require instructors to ensure students have "on their person an unexpired learner's permit" as opposed to the previous language of "possesses a valid learner's permit" under (a)(3). 140 IAC 4-1.3-3 was adopted on May 23, 2019. It was amended in 2022 slightly adjusting (b)(2) to no longer require the driver's license numbers for the instructors in an application for an instructor training program, but to also require the names of any creators of the program in addition to instructor's names. Instructor's names were already required under the original version of the rule. This rule was filed on November 25, 2014, and subsequently readopted on September 3, 2020. It was amended in 2022 to provide minor language additions. Subsections (c) and (f) both added "replacements" as being subject to the fees such that there was a $5 fee to replace an instructor's license under (c), when previously that fee was only for amendment of the license, and there was a $20 fee to replace a driver training school license, when previously that fee was only for amendment of that license. This rule was initially filed on November 25, 2014, and subsequently readopted on September 3, 2020, without amendment. This rule was filed on November 25, 2014, and was readopted on September 3, 2020. It has not been amended. This rule was filed November 25, 2014, and readopted September 3, 2020. In February 2022, it was amended to include "a copy of the route or routes used by the school in administering a skills test" as one of the records schools must keep available for potential inspection by the bureau under subsection (b). 140 IAC 4-1.5-4 was originally filed on November 25, 2014, and readopted on September 3, 2020, without substantive change. The rule was originally adopted on January 14, 1980. It was readopted July 30, 2001. It was again readopted on November 14, 2007. It was amended October 7, 2008, in accordance with IC 9-24-3, IC 9-24-4, and IC 9-27-4. It also added rules clarifying when a person who renews the person's chauffer's license must obtain the person's medical examination in accordance with IC 9-24-5-1. It was readopted November 3, 2014 and subsequently amended November 25, 2014 to: clarify language; remove the requirement for applicants 15 or younger to take a driver course under (a); restructure suspension or invalidation in the past as being a reason to not grant the waiver under (a) and moved this to the new subsection (c) instead; restructure (b) to only require proof of employment as a chauffeur to obtain hardship waiver of a chauffeur's license as the rest of this subsection was moved to the new subsection (c); restructure the old subsection (c) and split it into two requirements, the new subsections (d) and (e), where (d) requires applicants to use a specific form to make the request, and (e) details that a written waiver will be received if granted. It was again amended on October 5, 2017, to remove any components dealing with chauffeur's licenses. It was amended again on February 9, 2022, adding a new subsection (b) which allows hardship waiver of the practice driving requirements for an initial driver's license. 140 IAC 4-4-1 was first filed on November 12, 1998, readopted on November 16, 2004, again readopted on November 14, 2007, and further readopted November 26, 2013. It was amended November 2014 to no longer apply to commercial driver training schools or to high school driver education programs. It was readopted in September 2020. 140 IAC 4-4-1.1 was originally filed on November 25, 2014, and readopted on September 3, 2020. It was readopted with a minor language change amendment on February 9, 2022. The amendment changed "classroom training" to "theoretical training." Accordingly, no substantive changes have been made during this readoption cycle. 140 IAC 4-4-1.2 was initially filed November 25, 2014, and readopted on September 3, 2020. It was amended in 2022 to include roundabouts as an instruction requirement, as well as provide a 20-minute radius requirement in order to teach some topics, such as school zones and railway crossing. 140 IAC 4-4-1.3 was originally filed November 25, 2014, and subsequently readopted without substantive amendment on September 3, 2020. It was amended in 2022 to also require an interior rearview mirror for the instructor's use in addition to the preexisting requirement of an interior rearview mirror for the student's use. Section 4-4-6 was first filed in 1998. It was subsequently readopted without change in November 2004 and November 2007. It was amended in October 2008 to clarify language and add the requirement that a school must notify the bureau in writing within 10 days of a student failing to attend or failing to successfully complete the class and that the bureau must invalidate the learner's permit upon receipt. It was readopted and amended in November 2014 for minor language updates and to provide new regulations in the form of new subsections (c), (d), and (e). (c) provides a limit on the amount of training a student may complete per calendar day. (d) provides that a student may transfer successful completion of either classroom or behind-the-wheel training to another school. (e) provides situations where a student may transfer completed portions of uncompleted modules to another school. The rule was then readopted September 2020, changing or adding the following: "classroom" was changed to "theoretical" wherever the former existed; (b) was specified to only apply to students under 16 years of age; the maximum daily behind-the-wheel training was increased from one to two hours under (c); and new subsection (f) was added which requires behind-the-wheel training to be completed within 180 days of registering for it. 140 IAC 4-4-7 was initially filed November 12, 1998. It was readopted November 2004 and November 2007. It was amended October 2008, specifying a score of 80% was necessary to pass the classroom portion of driver education instead of a "B" grade. The rule was subsequently readopted and amended in November 2014 only to adjust language without altering meaning or function. It was readopted September 2020 and then amended in February 2022 to change "classroom" to "theoretical" and change the requirement from 80% to "a passing grade." Despite these changes, the rule remains unchanged in substance. 140 IAC 4-5-1 was originally filed in October 2008. It was readopted in November of 2014. It was amended for minor language changes but remained substantively unchanged in October 2017. It was amended in February 2022, specifying 180 days as opposed to 6 months for deadline purposes. In addition, language allowing one to provide optometrist or ophthalmologist notes in place of the eyesight examination requirement. Lastly, this amendment also raised the final tier's time frame from three years to five years in order to require the driving exam. The rule's substance has remained stable and continues to serve its intended function. 140 IAC 4-5-2 was originally adopted in October 2008 and subsequently readopted November 2014. It was amended for minor language changes in October 2017. It was again amended in February 2022 for minor language changes, as well as to provide optometrist or ophthalmologist notes instead of an eye examination. In addition, it raised the threshold from three years to five years in subsection (2). The rule continues to function as originally intended, ensuring competency-based reentry into Indiana's licensing system. 140 IAC 6-1-16.5 was adopted in 2008, readopted in 2014, and again readopted in 2020, with no substantive revisions during these cycles. The rule continues to operate effectively in its original form. 140 IAC 7-1.1-4 was adopted in 2008. It was readopted in 2014 and 2020. It was amended in 2022, reducing the length of the rule without adjusting the meaning or purpose, as the citation in the rule itself made the removed text superfluous. As such, the text has remained substantively unchanged across these filings. 140 IAC 7-1.2-1 was adopted in 2008. It was amended in 2009, making minor language edits, in addition to removing any references to specific interim license lengths (for example, (1) used to specify that it was good for a 14-day interim license, but after the amendment no longer indicated the length of the interim license). It also added the possibility of an interim license for an individual with an Indiana license but lost it out of state under (5), and for individuals that received an interim permit. Lastly, it removed subsection (b), which originally called out specific situations that an interim license would not be granted. This version of the rule was readopted in 2015. The rule was amended in 2017 to make the rule also cover the issuance of interim permits and identification cards, and to add clarification to subsection (2). It was next amended in 2022, adding new subsections (8) and (9). Subsection (8) provided that interim permits issued to individuals with an Indiana license expired for five years or more is only valid for completing one skills test, while subsection (9) did the same for individuals with expired out-of-state licenses. 140 IAC 7-2-9 was originally adopted in 1981 and subsequently readopted in 1983, 2001, and 2007. It was amended in 2008 to require payment before the test as well as allow bureau-approved organizations to administer skills tests for "reasonable fees." This version of the rule was readopted in 2014 and 2020. The rule was originally adopted in 1990 and was subsequently readopted in 2001 and 2007. It was amended in 2008 to provide additional clarity in its language in subsection (a) without altering its meaning. This amendment also removed subsections (b), (c), and (d) due to them being moved to other rules that expanded on their terms, such as 140 IAC 7-3-3.5 and 140 IAC 7-3-4. This made this rule no longer cover who could drive commercial vehicles on Indiana highways, who could and could not be issued a commercial driver's license, or what laws and codes commercial driver's licenses were subject to. Lastly, this amendment added a new subsection (b) which explained when commercial driver's licenses expired. This version of the rule was readopted in 2014 and 2020. 140 IAC 7-3-13 was originally adopted in 1990. It was readopted in 2001 and again in 2007. It was amended in 2008 to make minor language adjustments to subsection (a) without changing its meaning, as well as to provide a minimum of three years of valid ownership of a CDL for approval. A new subsection (b) was added to require 120 tests be administered annually to retain bureau approval. This rule was then amended in 2014 removing subsection (b), which required 120 tests be year. This amendment also added to subsection (a) the need to meet all requirements under 49 CFR 384.228. Lastly, a new subsection (b) was added to cap certification to a maximum of 4 years and subsection (c) permits applicants to reapply up to 30 days prior to the end of their current certification. The rule was originally filed in 1990. It was readopted in 2001 and again in 2007. It was amended in 2008 to clarify language, as well as to clarify the bureau's authority under IC 4-21.5-4 to immediately suspend CDL skills test examiner's approvals. It also added new subsection (5) which provides that the commissioner has discretion to revoke approval where one poses a threat to safety or otherwise warrants suspension. It was then readopted in 2014 and again in 2020. The rule was originally filed in 2008 and was subsequently readopted in 2014 and 2020 without substantive change. 140 IAC 7-6-1 was originally filed on February 9, 2022. No subsequent amendments, technical corrections, or readoptions have occurred. This rule was originally adopted in 2008. It was readopted in 2013. It was amended in 2017 without substantive change. It was amended again in 2022, removing references to repealed Indiana code sections 35-43-5-5 and 6-6-5-12. In addition, a new subsection (8) was added to reference the commission fund established by IC 9-14-14-1 but did not make any substantive changes to the function of the rule. 140 IAC 8-6-1 was originally filed in 2022 and has not been amended since. 140 IAC 9-4-1 was originally filed on June 7, 1993, and subsequently readopted in 2001 and again in 2007. It was then amended in 2008 to adjust language for clarity but not changing the rule's purpose or substance. It has since been readopted in 2014 and 2020. No substantive changes have occurred since the rule's adoption. 140 IAC 9-4-2.5 was adopted in 2008 and readopted without substantive changes in 2014 and again in 2020. The rule text has remained unchanged since its original promulgation. 140 IAC 9-4-6.5 was adopted in 2008 and readopted in 2014 and 2020 without substantive change.

XI. Integration into Indiana Code

The rule is procedural in nature and supports the administration of statutory financial responsibility requirements. It is appropriate for this material to remain in administrative rule form rather than being codified in statute. The content of 140 IAC 1-2-7 functions to operationalize statutory financial responsibility requirements. Because the rule provides procedural time limits that support agency administration and may require future adjustments based on data-processing practices, it is more appropriate for this material to remain in administrative rule rather than the Indiana Code. In addition, IC 9-25-3-5 instructs the bureau to "adopt rules . . . to establish procedures, conditions, and requirements concerning the filing of the proof of financial responsibility necessary to promote and ensure the effective enforcement of this article." Under IC 9-25-4 and IC 9-14-8-3, rulemaking authority for self-insurance program administration is delegated to the Bureau. The rule implements these statutes by detailing procedural steps. Because administrative control over deadlines and documentation may require future adaptations, retaining these provisions in rule form ensures flexibility. Collateral requirements must remain flexible enough to respond to changing financial instruments, security regulations, or statutory adjustments. Maintaining the provisions in administrative rule rather than statute allows the BMV to revise collateral forms or minimum requirements efficiently through rulemaking when necessary. In addition, IC 9-25-4-11 calls for the Bureau to issue certificates of self-insurance "under rules adopted to implement this section." Therefore, the substantive content is appropriately kept in administrative rule. Because collateral procedures involve administrative detail, such as acceptable collateral forms, timeframes, and replenishment requirements, these provisions are more appropriately maintained in administrative rule. Despite the lack of change in this rule since its adoption, retaining this material outside the Indiana Code permits procedural updates without statutory amendment which would take significantly longer. IC 9-25-3-5 directs the Bureau to adopt rules to establish "procedures, conditions, and requirements" regarding the filing of proof of financial responsibility. IC 9-14-8-3 requires the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules "necessary" to carry out its purpose. The rule provides flexible administrative detail, such as reporting timelines, collateral adjustments, and claim monitoring, that supports statutory directives under IC 9-25-3-5 and IC 9-14-8-3. Its continued presence in rule form allows prompt revision in response to evolving risk management practices without requiring legislative amendment. Master certificate distribution and form-cost recovery involve administrative details better suited for rule rather than statute. Retaining this content in administrative rule allows efficient updates (e.g., electronic forms) without legislative action, consistent with statutory delegation under IC 9-14-8-3. Cancellation and nonrenewal procedures involve procedural detail that are suited to administrative rule rather than statute. Maintaining this content in rule form supports flexibility and timely updates that typical legislation lacks. The rule appropriately complements statutory delegation under IC 9-25-4 and IC 9-14-8-3 and as such should remain in administrative code. The rule is procedural and interpretive, clarifying statutory standards. Located in the administrative code, it allows operational flexibility and prompt revision via rulemaking, avoiding the rigidity of statute. In addition, its inclusion in administrative code directly complies with existing statutory authority in IC 9-14-8-3 which requires the bureau to establish "rules and guidelines" for the suspension or revocation of driving privileges and registrations. Notification requirements are procedural, subject to change based on legislative or technological developments. They are appropriately located in administrative rule rather than statute. Maintaining them in the rule allows for timely future updates. In addition, its inclusion in administrative code directly complies with existing statutory authority in IC 9-14-8-3 which requires the bureau to establish "rules and guidelines" for the suspension or revocation of driving privileges and registrations. Due process procedures are appropriately detailed in administrative rule rather than statute to allow responsive updates. Continuation in rule form supports necessary procedural adaptations without legislative action, fulfilling statutory delegation under IC 9-14-8-3 which requires the bureau to establish "rules and guidelines" for the suspension or revocation of driving privileges and registrations. Due process procedures are appropriately detailed in administrative rule rather than statute to allow responsive updates. Continuation in rule form supports necessary procedural adaptations without legislative action, fulfilling statutory delegation under IC 9-14-8-3 which requires the bureau to establish "rules and guidelines" for the suspension or revocation of driving privileges and registrations. Because the rule establishes procedural requirements for administrative review, which is a matter best addressed through flexible rulemaking, it is appropriately located in the Indiana Administrative Code. This placement allows updates through rule amendments rather than statute, supporting adaptability. It is also consistent with the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-33-2-1. Lifecycle specifications involve administrative detail and potential for future adjustment based on material durability or specialty needs. Retaining this provision in administrative rule allows flexibility and timely response to technological change without requiring statutory amendment. The rule's numerous amendments since its adoption illustrate this need for administrative flexibility. In addition, this rule's existence in the Administrative Code directly aligns with IC 9-18.1-4-3. Definitions are procedural and administrative by nature and may need adjustment as the driver training program evolves. Maintaining these terms in rule form allows for flexibility without legislative action, consistent with statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3 and IC 9-27-6. Licensing specifics such as required documentation, renewal timing, and non-transferability are appropriately maintained in administrative rule, which allows future updates without legislative intervention. Statutory frameworks provide overall authority and standards, while the rule offers the procedural detail necessary for implementation under IC 9-27-6. IC 9-27-6-6 specifically requires the Bureau to adopt rules that "state the requirements for obtaining a driver training school license." As such, the legislative intent was for these requirements to be detailed in administrative rule. The rule's operational specificity and need for administrative flexibility make it better suited to administrative rule form than codification in Indiana Code. Although the rule has not undergone substantive amendment within the past eight years, its provisions address detailed operational requirements not appropriate for statutory placement. IC 9-27-6-6 and IC 9-27-6-11 indicate the legislature's intent for these rules to remain in administrative code. Due to the rule's technical, administrative nature, it is more suitable as an administrative regulation rather than codified law. Its flexibility and ability to accommodate curriculum updates support maintaining it within the IAC structure. Furthermore, IC 9-27-6-6 and IC 9-27-6-11 indicate the legislature's intent for these rules to remain in administrative code. Given the operational specificity of licensing controls and periodic procedural updates, this rule is appropriately maintained within the Indiana Administrative Code. Administrative code placement ensures the flexibility needed to adapt licensing protocols without legislative amendment. Furthermore, under IC 9-27-6-8, the Bureau is required to adopt rules that state the requirements for obtaining and renewing an instructor's license. As such, this rule's placement in administrative code is the legislative intent. The rule's content is operational and regulatory rather than statutory in nature. It requires administrative flexibility for enforcement and adaptation, and therefore it remains more appropriately located in the Indiana Administrative Code rather than the Indiana Code. IC 9-27-6-11 also requires the Bureau to adopt rules that concern, among other requirements, "establishment and maintenance of standards for instructors of driver education." The rule addresses technical program accreditation and curriculum oversight, functions that are appropriately suited to administrative rulemaking rather than statutory codification. Administrative placement ensures the flexibility needed to adapt instructional expectations over time. IC 9-27-6-11 also requires the Bureau to adopt rules that concern, among other requirements, "establishment and maintenance of standards for instructors of driver education" while IC 9-27-6-6 states that a driver training school "must obtain a driver training school license from the bureau in the manner and form prescribed by the bureau" and also states that the Bureau must adopt rules that "state the requirements for obtaining a driver training school license." Because the fee schedule requires periodic updates and aligns with administrative revenue mechanisms, it is appropriately maintained within the Indiana Administrative Code. Codification within the Indiana Code would limit the agency's flexibility to adapt fees as operational costs shift. Furthermore, the Indiana Code specifically calls for the Bureau to establish rules regarding fees for licenses in IC 9-27-6-9 and IC 9-27-6-11. Because enforcement guidelines require flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and involve detailed procedural provisions, administrative rule placement is most appropriate. Codification in the Indiana Code would reduce adaptability in license discipline. Furthermore, IC 9-27-6 directly prescribes the Bureau with rulemaking authority for this topic. Thus, it is the legislative intent for these guidelines to remain in administrative form. The insurance requirement is administrative in nature and requires flexibility for updates tandem with changes in insurance markets. Thus, retention within the Indiana Administrative Code remains most appropriate. Furthermore, IC 9-27-6 directly prescribes the Bureau with rulemaking authority for this topic. Thus, it is the legislative intent for these guidelines to remain in administrative form. Because audit and records maintenance requirements demand administrative flexibility and procedural detail, maintaining them within the Indiana Administrative Code is appropriate. Codification in the Indiana Code would reduce responsiveness to evolving oversight practices. Furthermore, IC 9-27-6 directly prescribes the Bureau with rulemaking authority for this topic. Thus, it is the legislative intent for these guidelines to remain in administrative form. The procedural nature and operational flexibility required for hearings under IC 4-21.5 support retaining this rule in the Indiana Administrative Code. Codification within statutory code would reduce adaptability and conflict with administrative law practice. Furthermore, IC 9-27-6 directly prescribes the Bureau with rulemaking authority for this topic. Thus, it is the legislative intent for these guidelines to remain in administrative form. Because the waiver mechanism is an administrative process tied to evolving policy and case-specific evaluation, maintaining it within the Indiana Administrative Code enables operational flexibility. Legislative codification would reduce adaptability in urgent hardship scenarios. IC 9-24-3-3 also specifically instructs the Bureau to conduct rulemaking for this purpose. As such, the Bureau is required to adopt this rule. Because 140 IAC 4-4-1 addresses administrative applicability rather than substantive policy, retaining it in the Indiana Administrative Code enables clear, organized, and timely regulatory structure. Codification within the Indiana Code itself would reduce organizational clarity and flexibility. For 4-1.1, curating and updating specific content standards is best suited to administrative rulemaking, where modifications can be made efficiently to reflect evolving driver safety research or educational development. The Indiana Code under IC 9-27-6 also specifically instructs the Bureau to create rules on this topic. Accordingly, retaining this rule in the Indiana Administrative Code remains appropriate. For 4-1.2, because this rule entails technical, operational training standards that may require periodic updating, its placement in the Indiana Administrative Code supports administrative flexibility. Codifying these provisions in the Indiana Code would impede timely adaptation to developments in driver safety. The Indiana Code under IC 9-27-6 also specifically instructs the Bureau to create rules on this topic. Accordingly, retaining this rule in the Indiana Administrative Code remains appropriate. For 4-1.3, given the operational and technical nature of vehicle equipment standards, this rule is most appropriately maintained within the Indiana Administrative Code rather than codified in statute. Administrative placement allows the Bureau to modify requirements as vehicle technologies evolve without necessitating legislative action. The Bureau is also required to adopt rules on this topic under IC 9-27-6-11. Given the operational nature of instructional hour requirements and the need for administrative flexibility, this rule is appropriately maintained in the Indiana Administrative Code rather than codified in statute. Adjustments to educational standards or instructional models may be necessary over time, and administrative rulemaking allows for timely updates. The Bureau is also required to conduct this rulemaking under IC 9-27-6-11. The passing-grade requirement is operational and pedagogical in nature. It is appropriately housed in the Indiana Administrative Code, where it can be updated as driver education standards evolve. Statutory codification would reduce flexibility. Because driver testing procedures require periodic administrative updates and depend on evolving operational practices, the rule is appropriately housed in the Indiana Administrative Code rather than in statute. Retaining administrative flexibility ensures the BMV can adjust examination procedures as needed. IC 9-24-11-2 also instructs the Bureau to issue driver's licenses "in a manner the bureau considers necessary and prudent." As such, the Bureau conducting rulemaking on this topic is also consistent with legislative intent. Because testing requirements may evolve as examination methods and licensing technology change, maintaining this rule within the Indiana Administrative Code is appropriate. Administrative rulemaking provides flexibility to adjust standards over time without legislative amendment. IC 9-24-11-2 also instructs the Bureau to issue driver's licenses "in a manner the bureau considers necessary and prudent." As such, the Bureau conducting rulemaking on this topic is also consistent with legislative intent. Because salvage and rebuilt title procedures involve technical, administrative processes that must be adapted to changes in fraud patterns, vehicle manufacturing, and titling practices, they are most appropriately maintained as administrative rules rather than statutory provisions. Retaining the rule in the IAC ensures that the BMV may update procedures as needed. In addition, IC 9-22-3-1 instructs the Bureau to "establish guidelines for determining the applicability of model year effective dates for each year" as it relates to salvage vehicles. As such, the Bureau is obligated to make this rule per statute. Because the rule contains specific, medically-oriented procedural requirements that must remain flexible and administratively enforceable, it is most appropriately maintained within the Indiana Administrative Code. Codification into the Indiana Code would reduce necessary administrative flexibility. In addition, IC 9-24-11-2 directs the Bureau to issue permits and driver's licenses in "a manner the bureau considers necessary and prudent." The rule is administrative in nature and requires flexibility to accommodate evolving identity-verification technologies and operational needs. Maintaining it in administrative rule rather than statute allows the Bureau to update procedures efficiently, as evident by its extensive revision history. Because this rule governs service-specific fees requiring periodic review and administrative flexibility, its location in the Indiana Administrative Code remains appropriate. Codification in statute would reduce the Bureau's ability to adjust fee structures in response to evolving operational costs. IC 9-14-8-3 also instructs the Bureau to adopt rules regarding fees "imposed under this title" and to adopt rules to "impose a fee on any other service for which a fee is not imposed under this article." The rule remains appropriately housed within administrative code. Its provisions pertain to operational aspects of commercial driver licensing that benefit from regulatory flexibility. As the CDL program continues to evolve in response to federal oversight and system-level changes, maintaining these requirements in administrative rule allows the state to adjust efficiently if needed. Integration into statute would reduce that flexibility without improving program administration. IC 9-24-6.1-2 also specifically calls for the Bureau to adopt rules regarding the CDL program. The rule is best maintained within administrative code rather than statute. Its subject matter concerns operational and qualification standards that may need to be adjusted in response to changes in federal CDL requirements or examiner training practices. Housing the rule in administrative code preserves flexibility for future updates and ensures ongoing alignment with federal expectations. Furthermore, under IC 9-24-6.1-2, the Bureau is tasked with developing and implementing a commercial driver's license program as well as adopting rules for that purpose. Given the highly administrative nature of the rule, with a focus on procedural enforcement of examiner approval, the rule is appropriately maintained within the administrative code rather than integrated into the Indiana Code. Its regulatory function necessitates flexibility via rulemaking, which statutes lack. Furthermore, under IC 9-24-6.1-2, the Bureau is tasked with developing and implementing a commercial driver's license program as well as adopting rules for that purpose. Given its regulatory, procedural purpose of establishing a duty for CDL holders to notify relevant parties, the rule remains appropriately located in the Indiana Administrative Code. Its inclusion within administrative code allows for straightforward revision if federal or state policies change, ensuring compliance remains adaptable and transparent. Furthermore, under IC 9-24-6.1-2, the Bureau is tasked with developing and implementing a commercial driver's license program as well as adopting rules for that purpose. The rule's procedural nature (establishing data collection and access protocols) necessitates administrative flexibility. Its placement in the Indiana Administrative Code allows adjustments over time without legislative action and aligns with rulemaking practices for credential-related processes. The Bureau is also required to create this rule under IC 9-26-10 which instructs the Bureau to create and maintain the Indiana emergency contact database. This internal procedural rule governs administrative workflows, fee recovery, and enforcement. This is administrative in nature and as such belongs in the Indiana Administrative Code. Its position within the service charge section of licensing rules provides clarity and adaptability for future procedural refinements. In addition, IC 9-14-8-3 instructs the Bureau to adopt rules regarding fees. The rule defines operational procedures for license branch exam scheduling. Its administrative nature, focused on flexibility and process control, makes its placement within the Indiana Administrative Code appropriate. Administrative code context allows for timely adjustments in response to exam delivery needs. IC 9-14-8-3 also requires the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. Driver testing administration is conclusively one of the Bureau's functions. The rule establishes a precisely defined, technical administrative requirement that supports statewide boating safety and uniform identification. Its inclusion in the Indiana Administrative Code allows for clear procedural governance and future adjustments via rulemaking, conforming with statutory administrative processes. The rule is procedural and operational in nature, implementing a federal standard for number display rather than establishing substantive policy. Because federal standards may evolve periodically, retaining the requirement in administrative rule rather than codifying it in statute provides the Bureau with needed flexibility. This allows for quicker adjustments than if the standard were in statute, such as a pivot away from the federal standard as a floor should the need arise. Its placement in the Indiana Administrative Code remains appropriate. Because the rule is purely procedural, only directing how the Bureau handles interstate registration conflicts, it is appropriate for placement in the Indiana Administrative Code rather than in statute. Its administrative nature requires the flexibility of rulemaking to respond to evolving registration practices. Water vehicle registrations falls under the Bureau's typical authority and therefore IC 9-14-8-3 permits the Bureau to maintain this rule.

XII. Contact Information of Staff to Answer Substantive Questions

Regulatory Analysis for Rule Readoption LSA Document #25-803 III. Description of Rule TITLE 140 IAC 1-2-7 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-25-3-5, which permits the Bureau to adopt rules regarding proof of financial responsibility. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 1-2-7 concerns the time limits within which the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) may send a request for evidence of financial responsibility after receiving the relevant accident report, abstract of court record, or judgment. The rule remains necessary to implement the financial responsibility program established by statute. It ensures that the BMV issues requests for evidence of financial responsibility within clear, reasonable, and statutorily-aligned time limits. Specifically, subsection (a) establishes a three-year period for the BMV to receive accident reports before sending a financial responsibility request, and subsection (b) provides the same three-year window for receipt of abstracts or judgments. These provisions continue to support accurate, timely administration of the financial responsibility statutes. c. Statement of Need - The problems addressed by the rule still exist: (1) accident reports and court abstracts continue to be received at varying times; and (2) the BMV requires consistent deadlines for initiating financial responsibility actions. The rule provides clarity and operational certainty while ensuring that individuals are not subject to requests based on excessively old incidents. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The BMV continues to administer the statutory financial responsibility program under IC 9-25-3, IC 9-25-4, and IC 9-25-5, and thus continues to carry out the subject matter addressed by this rule. No statutory changes have reassigned authority to another agency. The BMV remains responsible for issuing requests for financial responsibility proof and enforcing related suspensions. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not involve any fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-2 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials and records management. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 1-7-2 governs applications for self-insurance certificates, issuance and renewal requirements, and monthly updating procedures. This rule outlines procedural and documentation requirements for first-time self-insurance applicants, including a 30-day advance application deadline, specific information and affidavits required, issuance of certificates, and annual renewals every January 2. These procedures enable the BMV to ensure that applicants meet statutory financial responsibility requirements before acting as self-insurers.. c. Statement of Need - The rule remains critical, as self-insurance carries significant financial risk and oversight is necessary to maintain assurance that entities can compensate claimants. The rule's clarity and specificity support regulatory consistency and reduce risk of underinsured motor vehicle operations. Administrative staff can reliably track master lists, renewals, and certificate issuance via routine record systems. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The BMV continues to administer Indiana's self-insurance program under IC 9-25-4 and IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions), including oversight of qualified self-insurers. No statutory amendments have transferred this core authority. The Bureau remains responsible for managing self-insurance qualifications. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not involve any fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-3 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials and records management. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 1-7-3 establishes the financial collateral requirements for entities seeking approval as self-insurers. The rule specifies the minimum collateral amounts, acceptable forms of collateral, and conditions governing the deposit of such collateral. Entities may qualify as self-insurers in lieu of purchasing traditional motor vehicle liability insurance. Because self-insurance shifts the financial risk of accidents directly onto the entity, the BMV must ensure that applicants possess sufficient financial capacity to meet potential claims. This rule establishes the minimum collateral required: $50,000 for the first vehicle and $20,000 for each additional vehicle, up to a maximum of $1,000,000, with adjustments permitted if statutory requirements change.. c. Statement of Need - The rule further defines which forms of collateral may be accepted (United States currency or securities, evidence of escrow deposits, irrevocable letters of credit, and surety bonds) and clarifies that collateral held does not earn interest. These standards remain necessary to preserve financial stability and protect claimants. The continued need for the rule is supported by ongoing applications for self-insurance; the state's interest in ensuring claimants can be compensated; statutory requirements under IC 9-25-4; and the necessity of maintaining uniform collateral standards to avoid financial risk. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The BMV continues to be the agency responsible for administering Indiana's self-insurance program under IC 9-25-4 and IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions). Reviewing applications, evaluating financial sufficiency, and maintaining collateral remains an active operational responsibility of the Bureau. There have been no statutory changes reassigning these duties. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - 140 IAC 1-7-3 does not impose any fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-4 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials and records management. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 1-7-4 governs the use and replacement of financial collateral posted by entities approved as self-insurers. The rule establishes that if a self-insurer is unable to satisfy its legal obligations the BMV may authorize payment from the collateral posted and require the self-insurer to replenish the withdrawn amount within seventy-two hours to retain its certificate. Self-insurers assume direct financial responsibility for claims arising from the operation of their motor vehicles. Because the financial exposure can be significant, the state must ensure that adequate collateral is available to cover any unpaid judgments. 140 IAC 1-7-4 authorizes the BMV to (1) apply the posted collateral to outstanding obligations if the self-insurer fails to pay and (2) require the self-insurer to replace any withdrawn collateral within seventy-two hours. c. Statement of Need - This rule is essential for maintaining solvency protections and ensuring that individuals harmed in motor vehicle incidents are properly compensated. The rule continues to address conditions that remain prevalent: risks of insolvency, delayed judgment payments, and the need for clear authority to access collateral. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The BMV continues to administer the state's self-insurance program under IC 9-25 and IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions), including oversight of collateral management and monitoring the solvency of self-insured entities. No statutory changes have reassigned this responsibility to any other agency. Thus, the subject matter of the rule remains fully carried out by the BMV. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - 140 IAC 1-7-4 does not impose any fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-5 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials and records management. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 1-7-5 requires self-insurers to furnish a schedule of motor vehicle claims incurred during the preceding calendar year at the time of application or renewal. The BMV reviews these schedules and may require additional collateral if claims exceed established thresholds. The rule ensures that the BMV has visibility into claim trends and history and can adjust collateral requirements accordingly. Specifically, subsection (a) mandates disclosure of all claims from the previous year, while subsection (b) permits the commissioner to require additional collateral of up to $40,000 per vehicle if claim frequency or severity indicates heightened risk. This process supports the integrity of self-insurance, mitigating risk to claimants. c. Statement of Need - The rule remains necessary for maintaining financial stability, enabling proactive oversight, and preventing under-collateralization. It imposes reasonable, risk-based standards, avoiding unnecessary burden, and ensuring clarity in its provisions and practicability in its enforcement. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The rule aligns with the agency's continued statutory responsibility under IC 9-25-5 and IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) to oversee self-insurance programs and ensure financial assurance. No statutory changes have shifted this responsibility. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - 140 IAC 1-7-5 imposes no fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-6 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials and records management. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 1-7-6 requires self-insurance administrators to furnish a copy of the master self-insurance certificate to their members and authorizes the BMV commissioner to recover the cost of forms provided to self-insurers. The rule ensures that all covered members receive official documentation verifying their self-insurance status. Requiring the master certificate minimizes confusion and supports enforcement actions when vehicles are operated under self-insurance coverage. Authorizing form-cost recovery enables the BMV to maintain administrative efficiency without drawing on general funds. c. Statement of Need - This rule is necessary to support transparency, prevent improper self-insurance practices, and reimburse administrative expenses in a reasonable, recoverable manner. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The BMV retains authority under IC 9-25 and IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) to supervise self-insurance programs, including documentation distribution and administrative fee recovery. No statutory changes have removed these duties. The Bureau continues to carry out all actions governed by this rule. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This rule does not include any fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-8 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials and records management. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 1-7-8 governs the circumstances under which the BMV Commissioner may cancel or refuse to renew a certificate of self-insurance and establishes procedural hearing requirements. To protect the public and maintain the integrity of the self-insurance program, the Commissioner must have authority to act when specific occurrences take place that would otherwise pose an unnecessary risk. These occurrences include: (1) when collateral is inadequate or claims exceed posted collateral: (2) a self-insurer has filed for bankruptcy: (3) claim volume is excessive; (4) a judgment has not been paid within 30 days; and, (5) the self-insurer's license or registration has been suspended or revoked. c. Statement of Need - Without this rule, situations posing an unnecessary risk would go unchecked. Additionally, the rule ensures due process by requiring at least 15 days' notice and an opportunity for hearing prior to cancellation or nonrenewal, except in cases of failure to maintain collateral. This framework remains essential to safeguard claimants' interests and uphold program stability. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The rule continues to fall within the BMV's statutory authority to regulate self-insurance under IC 9-25-4 and IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions). The Bureau remains fully responsible for oversight, including certificate cancellation procedures. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not impose fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 1-9-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - IC 9-14-8-3 specifically require the bureau to establish "rules and guidelines" for the suspension or revocation of driving privileges and registrations. 140 IAC 1-9-1 defines "reasonable ground" for administrative suspension or revocation of driver's licenses, permits, identification cards, and registration documents. It maintains essential flexibility to address misconduct or errors not specifically listed in statute, enabling prompt corrective action to prevent misuse, fraud, or safety hazards. c. Statement of Need - The Bureau uses the structured definitions to assess disciplinary actions effectively and allows for prompt administrative decisions that protect public safety. As such, the rule provides necessary regulatory structure without undue cost or intrusiveness. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - These guidelines are essential to the BMV's ongoing authority under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-30-4-6.1 to take administrative action based on fraudulent, unsafe, or incorrect credential issuance. The Bureau continues to carry out this regulatory function. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - 140 IAC 1-9-1 does not impose any fees, fines, or penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 1-9-3 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer the notice requirements for suspensions and revocations of credentials under 140 IAC 1-9-3. This rule mandates that the Bureau notify individuals in writing when their driving privileges, vehicle registrations, license plates, or titles are suspended or revoked. Notices must describe the Bureau's action, inform the recipient of an eighteen-day window to request a review, and provide instructions for requesting such a review. c. Statement of Need - The rule ensures individuals are properly informed when adverse actions are taken against their credentials. Thorough and timely notification is critical for due process, enabling recipients to understand the basis for action and pursue review. No other rule provides the specific content and timelines for review eligibility. These elements collectively affirm that the rule remains necessary. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau exercises full ongoing authority in this context under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-30-4. Its enforcement of detailed notification procedures remains active and integral to agency operations. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - 140 IAC 1-9-3 does not impose any fee, fine, or penalty. TITLE 140 IAC 1-9-4 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 1-9-4 establishes procedures for administrative hearings when driving privileges, credentials, or registrations are suspended or revoked under sections 1(1) or 1(2) of the same rule. The rule demonstrates the Bureau's commitment to due process by guaranteeing individuals the right to an administrative hearing. It specifies critical timelines, submission requirements for supporting evidence, and factors the administrative law judge may consider, such as the age and intent of the individual or the risk of repeat fraud. c. Statement of Need - The procedural provisions in the rule are essential to ensure fairness, clarity, and consistency. Without them, the Bureau's authority to take administrative action could face legal challenge, and individuals would lack clarity about their rights and obligations. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The BMV continues to issue suspensions and revocations and is responsible for overseeing related administrative reviews. This procedural authority remains vested in the Bureau under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-30-4, and no statutory changes have transferred these responsibilities elsewhere. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This rule does not impose any fines, fees, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 1-9-5 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 1-9-5 prescribes the administrative review process for individuals whose credentials have been suspended or revoked under sections 1(3) through 1(7) of Rule 1-9. This process includes the deadline for requests, submission of relevant documentation, and the automatic stay of action pending review. c. Statement of Need - The rule ensures procedural fairness by providing an 18-day window for affected individuals to request review, stipulating that all relevant information must be submitted, and automatically staying enforcement actions until a determination is made. These elements protect due process, minimize potential harm from immediate suspensions, and streamline administrative operations. Without this rule, the process for administrative review in such situations would be unclear, providing for both increased confusion for citizens as well as a decrease in efficiency for the Bureau. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The BMV continues to administer this process under its statutory authority in IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-30-4. No statutory changes have reassigned this responsibility. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This rule does not impose any fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 1-10-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in legal. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It has not been updated since its initial adoption in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 1-10-1 outlines the process by which individuals may request a review of BMV records to identify material errors under IC 9-33-2-1. It requires that the request specify the alleged error with reasonable particularity and include supporting documentation. Ensuring record accuracy is essential to protect individuals' rights and prevent administrative harm arising from inaccuracies. c. Statement of Need - By codifying a standardized procedure, including the level of specificity required and inclusion of supporting documents, the rule aids efficient and fair record reviews. This clarity promotes transparency and due process and helps reduce costs by avoiding ad hoc requests. In addition, the rule is necessary to comply with state due process requirements. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The BMV continues its statutory role under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-33-2-1 to maintain accurate records and correct material errors in driving records. The rule remains within the Bureau's authority. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This rule does not impose any fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 2-1-14 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-18.1-4-3, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding license plate life cycles. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in registrations. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 2-1-14 sets the life cycle for license plates issued by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. It specifies that, absent a different designation, plates expire after ten registration years from initial issuance, with exceptions for specialty plates and any plate designated by the Commissioner to need a life cycle shorter than ten years. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-18.1-4-3 states that the Bureau shall adopt rules regarding, among other components, the "life cycle of license plates." The rule is needed to discharge this ongoing statutory duty. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The BMV continues to be responsible for plate issuance and renewal under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-18.1-4-3. IC 9-18.1-4-3 states that the Bureau shall adopt rules regarding, among other components, the "life cycle of license plates." The rule remains essential to this ongoing duty. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not impose fees, fines, or penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.1-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-1.1-1 provides definitions for terms used in Article 4 (Driver Training and Education) rules. The definitions rule promotes clarity and consistency across Article 4 rules. By standardizing terminology, such as differentiating between theoretical and behind-the-wheel training, defining key actors, and identifying required licenses, the rule ensures that regulated entities understand their obligations without ambiguity. Without a rule that dictates the definitions to be used throughout an article, ambiguity and inconsistency become significantly more likely to occur.. c. Statement of Need - These definitions continue to be necessary for the BMV's Driver Examiner Division in implementing driver training school licensing and education under IC 9-27-6 and IC 9-24-10-4. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The agency remains responsible for regulating driver education, and those definitions continue to support consistent program administration. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not impose fees, fines, or penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.2-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-6, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding requirements for obtaining driver training school licensure. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - This rule sets requirements for obtaining and renewing a driver training school license, including application contents, renewal timelines, ownership notification, and grounds for denial. Ensuring that driver training schools are properly vetted supports public safety by verifying program quality, instructor qualifications, insurance coverage, and financial responsibility. The rule establishes standardized application procedures, including fingerprint-based criminal background checks, evidence of insurance, owner information, tuition schedules, contracts, and licensing renewal deadlines. The rule also specifies the license is nontransferable, requires updates on changes within 10 days, and grants denial authority for misrepresentation or disqualification. c. Statement of Need - 140 IAC 4-1.2-1 is necessary because licensing driver training schools ensures they meet uniform standards for safety, documentation, and instructor qualifications. This rule allows the BMV to verify that each school is properly insured, responsibly operated, and free of disqualifying criminal history. In turn, it protects students and helps maintain consistent, high-quality driver education across the state. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Driver Examiner Division, part of the BMV, continues to oversee driver training school licensing under statutory authority provided by IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-27-6-6/11. No legislative changes have altered this responsibility, and the agency remains fully responsible for implementing and enforcing this rule. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not impose fees, fines, or penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.2-2 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-11, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding driver education curriculum. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - The rule establishes operational standards for driver training schools to ensure consistent instruction quality, consumer protection, and public safety. These objectives remain relevant and necessary. Furthermore, the Bureau is statutorily required to maintain rules on this subject matter. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-27-6-6 provides that the Bureau must adopt rules that state the requirements for obtaining a driver training school license. The Bureau continues to regulate driver training school operations under 140 IAC 4-1.2-2. The rule remains active and essential, empowering the agency to oversee where and how licensed schools provide theoretical instruction, enforce staffing and location restrictions, monitor training with contractual clarity, and ensure transparency regarding collisions or legal actions. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - These oversight functions are exercised under statutory authority in IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions), IC 9-27-6-6 (the Bureau must adopt rules that state the requirements for obtaining a driver training school license), and IC 9-27-6-11 (the Bureau must adopt rules concerning licenses, instructors, and driver education), and remain integral to the Bureau's training school responsibilities. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not impose fees, fines, or penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.2-3 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-11, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding driver education curriculum. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - The rule safeguards the quality of theoretical instruction by allowing driver training schools to accept online training certificates only if specific conditions are met, such as the online training complying with the theoretical training requirements of 140 IAC 4-4-1.1. It ensures that online curricula align with Indiana's standards and that students are enrolled in licensed schools and meet age requirements. c. Statement of Need - 140 IAC 4-1.2-3 is necessary to ensure that online driver training programs meet the same rigorous curriculum standards and oversight as in-person instruction. This rule requires bureau approval of online theoretical training, mandates concurrent enrollment at a licensed school, and sets a minimum age of 15. These help ensure quality, accountability, and legal compliance in driver education. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - Oversight of driver training curriculum is within the Bureau's authority under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions), IC 9-27-6-6, and IC 9-27-6-11. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not impose fees, fines, or penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.3-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-8, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding driver instructor licensure. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-1.3-1 establishes application, eligibility, documentation, and renewal requirements for individuals seeking a driver training instructor license. 140 IAC 4-1.3-1 ensures that instructors responsible for teaching novice drivers meet minimum safety, education, character, and health standards. c. Statement of Need - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer driver training licensing under IC 9-27-6 (the Bureau "shall adopt rules" that "state the requirements for obtaining and renewing an instructor's license"). Therefore, the rule is necessary to comply with Indiana law. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer driver training licensing under IC 9-27-6 (the Bureau "shall adopt rules" that "state the requirements for obtaining and renewing an instructor's license) and IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions), and the rule is still central to BMV's regulatory framework for training schools and instructors. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not impose fees, fines, or penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.3-2 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-8, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding driver instructor licensure. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-1.3-2 remains necessary because it establishes the expectations essential to ensuring safe, lawful, and professional behavior among driver training instructors. The rule requires instructors to adhere to curriculum standards, ensure proper documentation, verify student eligibility, and refrain from behaviors that may compromise student safety or public confidence. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-27-6-8 provides that the Bureau "shall adopt rules" that "state the requirements for obtaining and renewing an instructor's license. The rule regulates only those conduct requirements specific to instructors and not addressed elsewhere. Therefore, the rule is necessary to comply with Indiana law. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer and enforce the requirements governing driver training instructor conduct and qualifications as set forth in 140 IAC 4-1.3-2 under IC 9-27-6-8 (the Bureau "shall adopt rules" that "state the requirements for obtaining and renewing an instructor's license) and IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions), as well as 9-27-8-11. This responsibility remains fully within the agency's jurisdiction, and no statutory or administrative changes have reassigned oversight of instructor conduct standards to any other entity. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not impose fees, fines, or penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.3-3 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-11, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding driver instructor education standards. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-1.3-3 ensures that all instructor training programs meet minimum instructional standards, including at least ten hours of classroom instruction aligned with the theoretical training standards in 140 IAC 4-4-1.1, and that completion documentation is issued to trainees. Providers must submit detailed applications that include curriculum, materials, instructor identities, sample certificates, and any supplementary information requested by the BMV. This comprehensive review enables the agency to approve only those programs that meet established statewide instructional expectations. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-27-6-6 requires the Bureau to adopt rules "that state the requirements for obtaining a driver training school license". Therefore, the rule is necessary to comply with Indiana law. Without this rule, the lack of standards for driver training schools would raise public safety concerns due to a lack of consistency. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - Oversight of instructor training programs remains with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles under IC 9-27-6-6 (which requires the Bureau to adopt rules "that state the requirements for obtaining a driver training school license") and IC 9-27-6-11, and the rule continues to be administered in full by the agency. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not impose fees, fines, or penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.4-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, including fees. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - The rule sets forth a structured schedule of fees necessary to support proper administration of the driver training licensing system. It defines application, renewal, and amendment/replacement fees for instructors and training schools, while exempting certain public educational institutions. These fees cover administrative costs and contribute to regulatory oversight, thus serving an ongoing public interest. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-27-6-9 requires a license issued under 9-27-6-8 and 9-27-6-6 to have a fee prescribed by rule. Removing or reducing these fees would undermine the agency's ability to process applications and maintain licensing integrity. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to manage and enforce the fee structure associated with driver training licensing under 140 IAC 4-1.4-1 pursuant to its authority under IC 9-27-6-9, which requires a license issued under 9-27-6-8 and 9-27-6-6 to have a fee prescribed by rule. The agency retains full authority over establishing, collecting, and administering these fees, with no shift in jurisdiction since the rule was last readopted. 140 IAC 4-1.4-1 establishes fees but does not impose fines or civil penalties. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - Instructor initial or renewal license applications are set at $10 each, with a $5 fee for amendments or replacements. Driver training school applications and renewals are $100 per location, with amendments or replacements charged at $20. Schools maintained by public school corporations or state educational entities are exempt from training school licensing fees. Also, if an application is denied and resubmitted within 60 days, the fees are waived. These fees are necessary to help alleviate any administrative burden the BMV must bear in overseeing this program. Any cost of audits, inspections, or other associated expenses are offset by these annual fees. The amount of these fees is also reasonable and not burdensome to the contractors that bear the cost given the significantly higher price of each course these contractors offer. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.5-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-11, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding license suspension and cancellation. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-1.5-1 governs license suspension or revocation. In addition to statutory oversight, it identifies specific circumstances that warrant enforcement action. Examples of such circumstances include failure to maintain licensure requirements, violation of statutes or regulation, inconsistent training practices, submission of false information, or failure to cooperate with Bureau audits. The rule specifies how the Bureau may evaluate violations by considering severity, recurrence, willfulness, dishonesty, and prior history. It further prescribes procedural fairness by requiring written notice by first-class mail to the affected licensee. c. Statement of Need - 140 IAC 4-1.5-1 is necessary to hold driver training schools and instructors accountable by allowing the BMV to suspend or revoke licenses when they conduct any of the acts listed above, such as no longer meeting licensing requirements or providing false information. This rule empowers the bureau to act based on the severity, frequency, and intent of violations, up to license revocation, thus protecting public safety and educational integrity. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to exercise full authority over the suspension or revocation of licenses issued to driver training schools and instructors as provided for in 140 IAC 4-1.5-1. No transfer of jurisdiction has occurred, and the Bureau continues active administration of these enforcement powers under IC 9-27-6. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.5-2 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-6, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding driver training school requirements. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - This rule mandates that driver training schools must provide a certificate of insurance demonstrating minimum coverage for vehicles used in training. The rule requires minimum coverage of $100,000 for injury of one individual, $300,000 for injury of multiple individuals, and $25,000 for property damage. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - These insurance requirements are essential to protect student drivers and the public in case of accidents involving training vehicles. In addition, requiring owners to submit certificates of insurance showing the coverages are active helps to ensure compliance. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles maintains full authority over insurance requirements applicable to motor vehicles used by licensed driver training schools, as provided in 140 IAC 4-1.5-2, pursuant to its authority IC 9-27-6 and IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions). The rule remains under BMV jurisdiction and has not been relocated to another administrative authority. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.5-3 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-11, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding investigation into potential grounds for license revocation. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - This section authorizes the Bureau to audit or investigate schools and requires schools to maintain records demonstrating licensure qualifications and student training activity for the prior two years. Required records include student names, addresses, dates of course commencement and completion, instructor names, instruction types and hours, official driving skills test results, and copies of the skills test routes. Schools must allow BMV representatives to inspect and copy these records and inspect facilities during normal operating hours. c. Statement of Need - 140 IAC 4-1.5-3 is necessary because it gives the BMV clear authority to audit driver training schools and require accurate recordkeeping, ensuring compliance with state laws and training standards. These audits and required records help maintain transparency, verify proper instruction, and protect public safety. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to hold full authority to conduct audits and investigations of driver training schools as set forth in 140 IAC 4-1.5-3. The agency retains oversight responsibility under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-27-6, and administration of these compliance provisions remains within the Bureau's jurisdiction. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.5-4 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-11, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding conducting hearings on license revocations. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in legal. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - This section guarantees fairness by ensuring that any applicant whose license application is denied, or whose license is suspended or revoked, is entitled to an administrative hearing consistent with the Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (IC 4-21.5). c. Statement of Need - Such procedural provisions are essential for due process, enabling affected parties to challenge decisions and present evidence. If this rule were not readopted, due process concerns would arise and would potentially subject the Bureau to unfavorable litigation. The rule fully supports the public interest by enhancing the legitimacy and transparency of license enforcement efforts. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer hearing rights under 140 IAC 4-1.5-4 in connection with license actions against driver training schools and instructors. Responsibility remains with the BMV under the authority of IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-27-6, and no jurisdictional changes have occurred. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-2-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-24-3-3, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding hardship waivers. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - The waiver rule addresses specific, serious circumstances where an individual may lack alternative drivers yet requires independent mobility. For example, to drive a family member to medical care or to support household finances. These delineated objective criteria safeguard the waiver process from misuse while providing necessary flexibility. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-24-3-3 states that the Bureau must adopt rules "to state the conditions under which the requirements [of age and experience] may be waived." Therefore, the rule is necessary to comply with Indiana law. In addition, the rule satisfies a legitimate public need without imposing undue regulatory burden. Without this rule, Hoosiers with a legitimate and desperate need for an alternative to the traditional licensing requirements would be left with no alternative. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to retain full authority to grant hardship waivers of statutory age and behind-the-wheel experience requirements for initial operator and chauffeur licenses. This responsibility falls under IC 9-24-3-3, which states that the Bureau must adopt rules "to state the conditions under which the requirements [of age and experience] may be waived." The agency continues to administer and exercise this waiver process, and no jurisdictional transfers affecting this rule have occurred. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-4-1 establishes which entities are subject to regulatory oversight. By clearly identifying that the rule applies to teacher entities, including both private training schools and state driver examiners, the section ensures that all relevant parties are subject to regulatory requirements throughout the driver education process. c. Statement of Need - There are no broader statutory provisions or federal regulations that cover this scope, making the rule essential, concise, and enforceable as prescribed by the standards in IC 4-22-2-19.5. Without this foundational rule, both oversight and consistency in class administration could be compromised. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to retain full authority to administer the application rule governing driver education classes under 140 IAC 4-4-1. This rule, which applies to both licensed driver training schools and state-employed driver examiners, is supported by statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-24-10-4. The agency's jurisdiction has not shifted since the rule was last readopted and remains fully within the BMV's purview. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-1.1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-11, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding driver education curriculum. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-4-1.1 specifies a detailed list of topics that licensed driver training schools must cover during classroom or Internet-based instruction. These topics include knowledge of Indiana motor vehicle statutes and administrative rules; railroad-highway crossing safety; defensive and safe driving practices; driving techniques in various environments; driver responsibility; accident reporting; mental and physical fitness factors; substance impact; distracted driving; vehicle maintenance; emergency handling; driving skills; and organ donation procedures. c. Statement of Need - 140 IAC 4-4-1.1 is necessary because it ensures all driver training schools provide a comprehensive theoretical curriculum covering key topics like Indiana traffic laws, road safety, distracted driving, and defensive driving. By mandating a standard set of subjects, the rule promotes uniform knowledge and safe driving practices among new drivers. Without this rule, different schools might provide widely different curricula, resulting in inconsistent knowledge among drivers which would be a public safety concern. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles retains full authority to establish and enforce theoretical driver training standards under 140 IAC 4-4-1.1. This jurisdiction is based on statutory authority in IC 9-14-8-3 which instructs the Bureau to create rules to carry out its functions. IC 9-27-6-11 also instructs the Bureau to adopt rules concerning standards for driver education curriculum. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-1.2 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-11, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding driver education curriculum. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-4-1.2 establishes detailed requirements for in-vehicle training, mandating instruction and demonstration of essential driving skills such as stopping, starting, lane changes, signaling, backing, steering, merging, speed control, and safe interactions with other vehicles including motorcycles, bicycles, and trucks. The rule also requires incorporation of school zones, railroad crossings, and roundabout protocols where these features are within a 20-minute radius of the school. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-27-6-11 instructs the Bureau to adopt rules concerning standards for driver education curriculum. Therefore, the Bureau is statutorily required to have this rule, and it is necessary to meet that duty. The specifications themselves ensure consistency and comprehensiveness in driver training and reflect best practices in public safety. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles remains fully authorized to enforce standards for behind-the-wheel training provided by driver training schools. This jurisdiction is based on statutory authority in IC 9-14-8-3 which instructs the Bureau to create rules to carry out its functions. IC 9-27-6-11 also instructs the Bureau to adopt rules concerning standards for driver education curriculum. Administration of this rule continues seamlessly within the agency's existing oversight framework. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-1.3 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-11, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding driver education equipment. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-4-1.3 establishes essential safety and operational requirements for vehicles used in behind-the-wheel driver training. It requires each vehicle to be properly registered, to be no more than ten model years old, and to include critical safety equipment such as dual brake controls, inside and outside rearview mirrors, and seat belts. It further mandates visible driver-training vehicle markings and requires that vehicles be maintained in a safe mechanical condition. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-27-6-11 also instructs the Bureau to adopt rules concerning standards for driver education equipment. Therefore, the Bureau is statutorily required to have this rule, and it is necessary to meet that duty. The standards themselves ensure that students operate only safe and appropriately equipped vehicles, supporting the overall safety and integrity of driver education programs. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer standards for driver training school vehicles as set forth in 140 IAC 4-4-1.3. This regulatory responsibility remains firmly within the agency's authority under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-27-6-6, with no transfer of jurisdiction since the rule was last adopted. IC 9-27-6-11 also instructs the Bureau to adopt rules concerning standards for driver education equipment. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-6 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-11, requiring the Bureau to adopt rules regarding instruction hour limitations and instruction hour requirements. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - This rule establishes the minimum instructional hours for driver education (30 hours of theoretical training and 6 hours of behind-the-wheel training) and prescribes required timelines, attendance limits, and mechanisms for notifying the Bureau in cases of student non-completion. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-27-6-11 instructs the Bureau to adopt rules concerning standards for driver education curriculum, including concerning minimum hours of instruction and limitations on the number of hours a student can receive per day. Therefore, the Bureau is statutorily required to have this rule, and it is necessary to meet that duty. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer instructional hour requirements, attendance standards, and permit invalidation procedures for driver education under 140 IAC 4-4-6. These responsibilities fall directly under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions), IC 9-27-6-6, and IC 9-27-6-11. In particular, 9-27-6-11 requires the Bureau to adopt rules concerning minimum hours of instruction and limitations on the number of hours a student can receive per day. The Bureau remains the agency responsible, and no transfer of jurisdiction has occurred. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-7 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-27-6-10, requiring the Bureau to refuse licensing one that does not meet the requirements for a license. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-4-7 establishes the fundamental performance standard for all driver education students: they must receive a passing grade in both theoretical (classroom or online) training and behind-the-wheel instruction in order to successfully complete the course and qualify for a driving skills test waiver. This requirement ensures that students demonstrate sufficient understanding of the theoretical content and practical mastery of essential driving skills before advancing toward licensure. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-27-6-11 requires the Bureau to adopt rules concerning the criteria upon which to issue licenses. Therefore, the Bureau is required to have this rule to comply with Indiana law. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer and enforce the academic completion requirements for driver education programs under 140 IAC 4-4-7. Authority remains with the agency pursuant to IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-24-10-4, and no transfer of jurisdiction has occurred. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-5-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-24-11-2, which permits the Bureau to issue driver's licenses in the manner the Bureau considers necessary and prudent. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-5-1 provides a graduated structure for testing requirements based on how long an applicant's prior Indiana license has been expired. The rule ensures that applicants whose knowledge or driving skills may have diminished over time demonstrate adequate competency before resuming driving privileges. The rule's tiered requirements maintain strong alignment with public safety needs. Expirations of no more than 180 days require only a vision screening. Expirations of more than 180 days but not more than 3 years require a vision screening and a written examination. Expirations of more than 5 years require a vision screening, written examination, and a driving skills test. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-27-6-11 requires the Bureau to adopt rules concerning the criteria upon which to issue licenses, while IC 9-24-11-2 permits the Bureau to issue driver's licenses in the manner the Bureau considers necessary and prudent. Thus, this rule is necessary for the Bureau to discharge its duty under Indiana law. In addition, the rule helps maintain driver competency and public safety. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer the examination requirements for applicants whose prior Indiana driver's license has expired. Under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-24-11-2, the BMV retains full regulatory and operational authority over driver licensing procedures, including the testing obligations triggered when a license has lapsed. These responsibilities have not been transferred to any other agency and remain actively carried out by the BMV. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 4-5-2 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-24-11-2, which permits the Bureau to issue driver's licenses in the manner the Bureau considers necessary and prudent. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 4-5-2 establishes a structured, risk-based approach for determining what examinations are necessary when a previously licensed driver from another state seeks an Indiana license after allowing the prior license to expire. This rule recognizes that the length of expiration and the applicant's previous licensure history directly correlate to the need for reassessing driving knowledge and skills. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-27-6-11 requires the Bureau to adopt rules concerning the criteria upon which to issue licenses, while IC 9-24-11-2 permits the Bureau to issue driver's licenses in the manner the Bureau considers necessary and prudent. Thus, this rule is necessary for the Bureau to discharge its duty under Indiana law. In addition, the rule helps maintain driver competency and public safety. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer the examination requirements governing applicants who seek an Indiana driver's license after their out-of-state license has expired. These responsibilities arise under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-24-11-2, and no authority has been transferred to another agency. The BMV remains the entity charged with reviewing eligibility, administering examinations, and determining whether applicants from other jurisdictions sufficiently demonstrate competency to resume licensed driving in Indiana. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 6-1-16.5 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in titles. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - This section governs the lifecycle of a salvage motor vehicle from the point of acquisition through restoration, sale, and eventual retitling. Because salvage vehicles carry heightened fraud, safety, and consumer-protection risks, the rule establishes essential procedural guardrails. The rule requires that anyone acquiring a salvage vehicle manufactured within the prior seven model years apply for a salvage title. It allows, but does not require, a restorer to obtain a rebuilt title before selling the vehicle; however, if sold while still titled as salvage, the seller must provide the buyer with both the salvage title and an affidavit of restoration. The rule also prohibits registration of any such vehicle until a rebuilt title is obtained. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - 140 IAC 6-1-16.5 is necessary to ensure salvage vehicles are clearly tracked and safely returned to service. These provisions are crucial in ensuring restored vehicles meet statutory criteria, preventing unsafe vehicles from returning to the road without proper oversight. This protects consumers, preserves title integrity, and safeguards public safety. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to hold full authority for administering salvage and rebuilt title processes under 140 IAC 6-1-16.5. The BMV remains the entity responsible under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-22-3-1 for issuing salvage titles, rebuilt titles, and associated documentation for vehicles that have been damaged, restored, or reconstructed. No statutory or administrative changes have reassigned this authority. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 7-1.1-4 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, as well as to comply with IC 9-24-11-9. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 7-1.1-4 governs the documentation required for applicants whose medical conditions may cause them to appear intoxicated when applying for a driver's license under IC 9-24-11-9. This rule serves an essential function, ensuring that individuals with certain medical conditions that may mimic intoxication are evaluated through a physician's certification process before they may be issued a driver's license. The rule specifies that the required certificate must be obtained within 30 days prior to application. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - The requirement aligns closely with public safety objectives by ensuring that applicants whose physical presentation may be misunderstood as intoxication are assessed by a qualified medical provider. This mitigates risks associated with undiagnosed or uncontrolled medical impairments that could affect driving. The rule is essential to maintaining safe and appropriate licensing standards and no alternative regulatory mechanism would provide the Bureau an equally reliable method to confirm medical fitness for individuals whose appearance may raise safety concerns. Without the rule, the BMV would be unable to appropriately evaluate these cases in a consistent and medically-informed manner. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer these licensing determinations and remains the responsible authority under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions), IC 9-24-11-2, and IC 9-24-11-9. No statutory or administrative changes have shifted this responsibility to another agency. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 7-1.2-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-24-11-2, which permits the Bureau to issue driver's licenses in the manner the Bureau considers necessary and prudent. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 7-1.2-1 establishes the circumstances in which the BMV may issue an interim credential to an applicant who has met all licensing requirements but cannot be issued a permanent form of identification at the time of the transaction. These circumstances include system outages, the need for fraud investigation or identity verification, delays created by external data sources, out-of-state travel that prevents timely renewal, and situations involving long-expired licenses that require completion of a skills test. These controls maintain both safety and administrative flexibility. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - The rule remains necessary because interim credentials ensure continuity of lawful driving privileges during short-term disruptions, administrative delays, or special circumstances that otherwise prevent the issuance of a standard physical or digital credential. The rule achieves necessary regulatory goals of continuity, identity integrity, and compliance without imposing burdensome requirements. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer all processes related to the issuance of interim driver's licenses, permits, and identification cards as prescribed in 140 IAC 7-1.2-1. The authority to issue interim credentials falls directly under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and various provisions of IC 9-24, and no jurisdictional changes have altered the Bureau's responsibility. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This section does not prescribe fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 7-2-9 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, including fees. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - This section establishes the fee structure applicable to motorcycle operational skills testing. It requires applicants to pay the lawful testing fee to the approved motorcycle examiner before the test and authorizes bureau-approved organizations that administer skills tests to charge reasonable fees to cover administrative costs, plus an additional $5 examiner fee. It further provides that certified motorcycle examiners who are not state employees may retain fees for services rendered. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - These provisions remain essential to maintain a stable, functional testing system that supports examiner compensation, ensures organizational cost recovery, and preserves the quality and availability of motorcycle skills testing services statewide. Without a clearly defined fee framework, the BMV would lack the ability to ensure uniformity across test sites, maintain market fairness, or guarantee that testing providers operate sustainably. Fees reflect only the costs of test administration and examiner compensation thereby avoiding unnecessary or inflated amounts while sustaining an adequate infrastructure for motorcycle skills testing. No alternative approach would achieve these aims without either imposing insufficient oversight or creating inequities in statewide fee practices. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer motorcycle operational skills tests and regulate the associated fee structure as prescribed in 140 IAC 7-2-9. The authority for imposing and overseeing these fees remains with the agency under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-24-8. No transfer of authority has occurred, and the Bureau continues to rely on this rule when approving, monitoring, and compensating motorcycle skills test examiners. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - 140 IAC 7-2-9 expressly establishes fees for motorcycle operational skills tests. It does not impose fines or civil penalties. The purpose of the fee is to support the cost of test administration, including examiner services and organizational overhead. The fee is charged only when an applicant sits for a motorcycle operational skills test. The regulation limits fees to those necessary to cover reasonable administrative costs and a flat $5 examiner fee. This ensures fees correlate directly to service provision rather than serving punitive or revenue-raising purposes. The fee is not intended to penalize applicants but to fund essential testing services. TITLE 140 IAC 7-3-2 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-24-6.1-2, instructing the Bureau to adopt rules to create and implement a CDL program. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 7-3-2 mandates that a CDL holder cannot have more than driver's license at one time and establishes when a CDL expires. The requirements found in 140 IAC 7-3-2 remain necessary to maintain a compliant and functional CDL program. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-24-6.1-2 tasks the BMV with administration of CDL standards. As such, this rule is required for the Bureau to discharge that duty. The prohibition on holding more than one driver's license is consistent with federal CDL program standards and continues to serve essential safety and enforcement purposes by preventing duplicate or conflicting credentials and ensuring that each CDL holder's driving record is accurately consolidated. Likewise, the four-year expiration cycle provides predictability, supports consistent record-checking procedures, and aligns with the BMV's broader licensing operations. The rule requires no additional documentation and sets out two foundational conditions that the BMV must already enforce to comply with federal CDL requirements. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The subject matter of 140 IAC 7-3-2 continues to fall directly within the responsibilities of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV). The rule governs two fundamental components of Indiana's commercial driver's license (CDL) program and both provisions remain supported by the rule's statutory authority, IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-24-6.1-2, which still tasks the BMV with administration of CDL standards. No statutory amendments or organizational changes have shifted responsibility for these matters away from the agency. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not establish fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 7-3-13 a. History and Background of the Rule - Without readoption, the rule was set to expire. During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-24-6.1-2, instructing the Bureau to adopt rules to create and implement a CDL program. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 7-3-13 governs certified CDL skills test examiner qualifications. The rule continues to serve a critical function by establishing clear, objective standards for those responsible for administering CDL skills tests. Requiring examiners to meet defined age, licensure, experience, and training qualifications promotes both safety and the reliability of CDL testing. Because examiners directly evaluate whether applicants are competent to operate commercial motor vehicles, the standards in the rule support consistent evaluations and protect public safety. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-24-6.1-2 requires the Bureau to adopt rules to create and implement a CDL program. As such, this rule is required for the Bureau to discharge that duty. The rule itself supports compliance with federally required examiner qualifications, and each requirement is directly tied to maintaining the competence and credibility of the CDL testing process. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - This continues to address subject matter currently administered by the Bureau, as they are responsible for commercial driver licensing under IC 9-24-6.1-2. The Bureau remains charged with evaluating and approving individuals who conduct CDL skills examinations and continues to rely on a defined set of examiner qualifications to ensure the integrity, uniformity, and safety of CDL testing. These responsibilities remain fully within the Bureau's present statutory authority. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not establish fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 7-3-14 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-24-6.1-2, instructing the Bureau to adopt rules to create and implement a CDL program. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule -. The rule ensures that individuals conducting CDL exams maintain professional conduct and integrity and are held accountable for serious misconduct, aligning with federal and state safety objectives. Without this regulatory framework, enforcement of examiner qualifications, accountability for misconduct, and revocation authority would be hampered. This rule is crucial for maintaining public safety and preserving the integrity of the CDL testing process. The rule operates in harmony with procedural safeguards in the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (IC 4-21.5), which permits the Bureau to immediately suspend an examiner pending a formal hearing.. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-24-6.1-2 requires the Bureau to adopt rules to create and implement a CDL program. As such, this rule is necessary for the Bureau to discharge that duty. In addition, the rule itself ensures that only qualified, trustworthy examiners administer critical CDL tests, maintaining the integrity and safety of commercial driver licensing in Indiana. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer the certification, suspension, and revocation of commercial driver's license (CDL) skills test examiners under 140 IAC 7-3-14. The agency maintains full authority and responsibility in this area pursuant to IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-24-6.1-2. These statutes remain active, and the rule remains integral to the Bureau's ongoing regulatory functions. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not establish fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 7-3-18.5 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, and IC 9-24-6.1-2, instructing the Bureau to adopt rules to create and implement a CDL program. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 7-3-18.5 requires a CDL holder to notify the Bureau as well as their employer whenever they are convicted of violating any state or local law relating to motor vehicle traffic control. The rule ensures that the Bureau remains promptly informed when a CDL holder is convicted under state or local traffic laws, thereby protecting public safety and regulatory integrity. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-24-6.1-2 requires the Bureau to adopt rules to create and implement a CDL program. As such, this rule is necessary for the Bureau to discharge that duty. In addition, the rule's requirement for prompt reporting supports public safety, maintains the integrity of CDL records, and enables employers to take appropriate, timely action. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles retains responsibility for enforcing the requirement that Commercial Driver's License holders must notify the Bureau and their employer after any traffic control conviction. 140 IAC 7-3-18.5 continues to fall squarely within the Bureau's commercial driver licensing authority under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-24-6.1-2. The rule remains active and operational under state law. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not establish fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 7-6-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created to comply with IC 9-26-10-1, which instructed the Bureau to create and maintain the Indiana emergency contact database. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in branch management and credentials. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It has not been updated since its adoption in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 7-6-1 governs the Bureau's emergency contact database whereby credential holders can provide emergency contact information for use by authorized personnel in the event the provider is otherwise incapacitated or unable to respond. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - IC 9-26-10-1 mandates the Bureau to "create and maintain the Indiana emergency contact data base." This rule ensures public safety by providing authorized personnel such as coroners and law enforcement with access to emergency contact information in critical situations. This fulfills a vital public interest and aligns with Indiana law. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to operate and manage the Indiana emergency contact database and is required to do so pursuant to IC 9-26-10-1, which mandates the Bureau to "create and maintain the Indiana emergency contact data base." Under 140 IAC 7-6-1, the Bureau establishes, updates, and maintains emergency contact information for credential holders, aligning with statutory authority provided by IC 9-26-10. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not establish fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 8-3-29 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions, including fees. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in branch management as well as fraud and security. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 8-3-29 prescribes what actions the Bureau should take in the event a financial institution dishonors or otherwise rejects a person's payment method. This rule is essential to ensure that payment obligations to the Bureau are fulfilled, preserving public trust and maintaining the operating capacity of licensing systems. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - Without this rule, the Bureau would lack a procedure for payment failures which risks the agency's efficiency as well as risks financial complications. The rule remains both necessary and appropriately targeted to ensure compliance and recover dues without undue burden. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer procedures for handling dishonored or rejected payments under 140 IAC 8-3-29. It remains fully within the Bureau's authority under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - The rule does not impose punitive fines or civil penalties. Fees are limited to recovery of costs associated with dishonored payments and a $10 reinstatement charge. These fees are only levied in the event a person's payment is rejected. These fees are purely administrative in nature and cover the costs associated with monitoring and collecting these fees. TITLE 140 IAC 8-6-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in driver examination and education as well as branch management. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It has not been updated since its adoption in 2022. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 8-6-1 forbids one that does not pass their knowledge test for a driver's license from attempting again the same day as the failure. It also forbids anyone that fails the skills test portion of the driver's license exam from attempting again for seven days. This rule ensures orderly administration of driver license testing by establishing waiting periods between failed attempts. It reflects essential procedural requirements and enhances operational efficiency and fairness. This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption. c. Statement of Need - Without such restrictions, the Bureau risks a significant loss of efficiency in their branch operations. An unprepared individual could monopolize Bureau time and resources by repeatedly taking consecutive attempts. To ensure fair and consistent opportunity for all, the rule is necessary. The rule aligns with the Bureau's existing operational infrastructure, maintaining test integrity and resource management. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to oversee testing conducted at license branches pursuant to 140 IAC 8-6-1. The rule governs the timing of knowledge and skills examinations administered under IC 9-24-10-4. The Bureau retains full responsibility for exam scheduling policies and enforcement, consistent with existing statute and administrative practice. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This rule prescribes no fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 9-4-1 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in registrations. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 9-4-1 sets out the specific guidelines for motorboat registration numbers. Indiana requires uniform motorboat identification for enforcement, safety, and data tracking. 140 IAC 9-4-1 defines a clear, consistent three-part format beginning with "IN," followed by four numerals, and concluding with two letters, excluding I, O, and Q. c. Statement of Need - Without this rule, the risk of confusion or misidentification of boats increases. The rule is set up to exclude ambiguous or similar characters, such as O and Q, which aids in the ability to quickly read and verify vessels on the water. It also promotes coordination with federal standards and other states during enforcement, registration, or compliance checks due to the "IN" prefix. The rule remains foundational to maintaining an effective, readable, and interoperable vessel registration system. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles retains full authority over motorboat registrations pursuant to 140 IAC 9-4-1. The rule specifies the required format for motorboat registration numbers and continues to govern this function, aligned with the statutory framework under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-18.1-14.5-5. Its administration remains active and integral to BMV operations. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This rule prescribes no fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 9-4-2.5 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in registrations. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 9-4-2.5 requires that the registration number assigned to a motorboat be displayed in the manner specified in federal regulation 33 CFR 173.27. Incorporation of federal display requirements ensures consistency in enforcement and identification of watercraft across jurisdictions, while also avoiding unnecessary layering of requirements. c. Statement of Need - Federal regulations require Indiana boats to adhere to this rule. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to oversee the regulation and display requirements for motorboat registration numbers. This responsibility remains firmly within the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and IC 9-18.1-14.5, and the rule's subject matter remains active and in use within the agency's regulatory portfolio. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This rule prescribes no fees, fines, or civil penalties. TITLE 140 IAC 9-4-6.5 a. History and Background of the Rule - During its initial adoption, the rule was created pursuant to the Bureau's statutory authority under IC 9-14-8-3, which permits the Bureau to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its functions. This rule was developed through consultation and collaboration with the Bureau's subject matter experts in registrations. By leveraging the knowledge of the Bureau's subject matter experts in the promulgation of administrative rules, the Bureau was able to ensure its operations are consistent with state and federal law while minimizing the regulatory burden on Hoosiers. It was last readopted in 2020. b. Scope of the Rule - 140 IAC 9-4-6.5 authorizes the Bureau to cancel any motorboat registration upon discovery that the vehicle is registered with another state agency and requires anyone cancelled in this way to surrender a canceled certificate of registration upon demand by the Bureau, police, or a conservation officer. The purpose of 140 IAC 9-4-6.5 is to prevent conflicting registrations between Indiana and other states and to ensure accuracy of motorboat registration records. It also clarifies that cancellation does not determine ownership. c. Statement of Need - These provisions remain necessary to maintain proper record control, avoid duplicate registrations, and ensure legal clarity. d. Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rule - The Bureau of Motor Vehicles continues to administer watercraft registrations under IC 9-18.1-14.5, including cancellation of registrations when a motorboat is found to be registered in another state. 140 IAC 9-4-6.5 remains squarely within the Bureau's authority under IC 9-14-8-3 (the Bureau may "adopt and enforce rules" to carry out their necessary functions) and is actively implemented as part of the agency's registration operations. e. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties - This rule prescribes no fees, fines, or civil penalties. II. Fiscal Impact Analysis a. Anticipated Effective Date of the Rule - The sections being readopted will become effective January 1, 2027. b. Estimated Fiscal Impact on State and Local Government - TITLE 140 IAC 1-2-7 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being added to 140 IAC 1-2. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-2-7 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-2 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-7-2 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-3 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published December 14, 2016, under LSA #16-492 concerning the proposed readoption being amended to increase the collateral requirements to be consistent with statutory requirements under IC 9-25-4-10. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-7-3 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-4 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-7-4 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-5 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-7-5 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-6 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-7-6 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 1-7-8 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-7-8 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 1-9-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-9-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 1-9-3 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-9-3 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 1-9-4 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-9-4 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 1-9-5 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-9-5 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 1-10-1 This rule was not mentioned in the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA # 21-460 when the proposed rule was originally adopted. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 1-10-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 2-1-14 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 2-1-14 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.1-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.1-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.2-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.2-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.2-2 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.2-2 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.2-3 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.2-3 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.3-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.3-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.3-2 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.3-2 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.3-3 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.3-3 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.4-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. As noted in the Economic Impact Statement, 140 IAC 4-1.4-1 concerns approximately 250 small businesses, totaling less than $1,000 per year in fees collected for the totality of small businesses. Instructor initial or renewal license applications are set at $10 each, with a $5 fee for amendments or replacements. Driver training school applications and renewals are $100 per location, with amendments or replacements charged at $20. These fees are necessary to help alleviate any administrative burden the BMV must bear in overseeing this program. Any cost of audits, inspections, or other associated expenses are offset by these annual fees. As such, the proposed readoption continues to have virtually zero fiscal impact on state and local government. In addition, the rule has no impact on expenditure and virtually no impact on revenue (less than $1,000 per year) and imposes no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.4-1 will continue to impose minimal fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.5-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.5-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.5-2 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.5-2 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.5-3 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.5-3 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-1.5-4 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. Because this section only provides access to statutory hearings and does not impose additional administrative or fiscal obligations, the proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-1.5-4 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-2-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-2-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-1 For 4-1, There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being amended. Because this rule solely clarifies applicability, it imposes no direct cost or regulatory burden. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-4-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-1.1 For 4-1.1, there have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-4-1.1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-1.2 For 4-1.2, there have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-4-1.2 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-1.3 For 4-1.3, there have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-4-1.3 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-6 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-4-6 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-4-7 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-4-7 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-5-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-5-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 4-5-2 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 4-5-2 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 6-1-16.5 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 6-1-16.5 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 7-1.1-4 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 7-1.1-4 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 7-1.2-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 7-1.2-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 7-2-9 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. 140 IAC 7-2-9 imposes a modest fee necessary to cover reasonable administrative costs and a flat $5 examiner fee, collected by the Bureau approved organization administering the test. The purpose of the fee is to support the cost of test administration, including examiner services and organizational overhead. The fiscal impact on state and local governments is minimal as test administration costs are assumed by private examiners and approved organizations. As such, the proposed readoption continues to have virtually zero fiscal impact on state and local government. In addition, the rule has no impact on expenditure and virtually no impact on revenue and imposes no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 7-2-9 will continue to impose minimal fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 7-3-2 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 7-3-2 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 7-3-13 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published October 29, 2014, under LSA #14-292 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 7-3-13 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 7-3-14 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 7-3-14 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 7-3-18.5 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 7-3-18.5 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 7-6-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 7-6-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 8-3-29 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being amended. 140 IAC 8-3-29 imposes a modest fee of $10 to customers as a reinstatement charge. As such, the only cost to state or local governments is administrative in nature and should be covered by the modest fee included in the rule. Because the rule imposes no fees beyond existing statutory authorizations and integrates seamlessly into the Bureau's administrative workflows, it does not generate new economic burdens. As such, the proposed readoption continues to have virtually zero fiscal impact on state and local government. In addition, the rule has no impact on expenditure and virtually no impact on revenue and imposes no measurable administrative impact on state and local government units. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 8-3-29 will continue to impose minimal fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 8-6-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published November 24, 2021, under LSA #21-460 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 8-6-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 9-4-1 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 9-4-1 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 9-4-2.5 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being adopted. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 9-4-2.5 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. TITLE 140 IAC 9-4-6.5 There have been no changes or revisions to the Economic Impact Statement published July 2, 2008, under LSA #08-215 concerning the proposed rule being amended. The proposed readoption continues to have no fiscal impact on state and local government, no impact on revenues and expenditures, and impose no measurable administrative impact on state and local government. There have been no new economic impacts since the previously prepared analysis. The proposed readoption of 140 IAC 9-4-6.5 will continue to impose no fiscal impact on state and local government units. c. Sources of Expenditures or Revenues Affected by the Rule - The proposed readoption will not impact the expenditures or revenues of the state or local government units. III. Impacted Parties The rules contained in 140 IAC 1-2-7 essentially impact all people in Indiana. The rule impacts any driver involved in reportable accidents, drivers convicted of moving violations, any vehicle owners listed in accident reports or abstracts, and insurance providers. Indiana has approximately 5,500,000 licensed drivers. The rules contained in 140 IAC 1-7-2 through 140 IAC 1-7-8 only impacts individuals that are either self-insured or are self-insurers, as the rule deal specifically and exclusively with self-insurance. This is a small number of people as the vast majority of individuals are not self-insured. The rules contained in 140 IAC 1-9-1 and 140 IAC 1-9-3 essentially impact all people in Indiana, as the rule concerns reasonable grounds for suspension or revocation of licensure. As such, the rule has the ability to impact any Indiana driver, provided they meet one of the enumerated reasons for suspension or revocation. Indiana has approximately 5,500,000 licensed drivers. The rules contained in 140 IAC 1-9-4 and 140 IAC 1-9-5 essentially impact all people in Indiana, as the rule concerns appeal procedures for individuals who have had their license suspended or revoked. As such, the rule has the ability to impact any Indiana driver, provided they meet one of the enumerated reasons for suspension or revocation and elect to appeal. Indiana has approximately 5,500,000 licensed drivers. The rules contained in 140 IAC 1-10-1 impact all people in Indiana. The rule concerns basic due process concerns, allowing individuals to file for material error review whenever they feel like an error has been committed by the BMV. As this option is available to all Indiana citizens, this rule impacts everyone. The rules contained in 140 IAC 2-1-14 essentially impact any vehicle owners in Indiana, as the rule concerns the life cycle for license plates. It would also concern any party that has a specialty license plate with the BMV. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.1-1 concern definitions that impact: approximately 240 driver training schools (who must structure and comply with definitions); approximately 700 instructor license holders (defined terms guide their certification and scope of instruction); approximately 32,000 annual students in driver training programs (who must complete specific components); approximately 700 law enforcement or BMV examiners (who must assess compliance during skills tests or audits). The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.2-1 impact primarily driving training school owners, as the rule only concerns the application process for a driver training school. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.2-2 impact primarily driving training school owners, as the rule only concerns driver training school operations. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.2-1 impact primarily driving training school owners or online driver training providers, as the rule only concerns online driver training school requirements as it relates to the transfer of credits to driver training schools. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.3-1 impact primarily prospective and licensed driver training instructors and driver training schools, as the rule concerns initial and renewal driver training instructor applications. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.3-2 impact primarily driver training instructors and driver training schools, as the rule concerns driver training instructor requirements. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.3-3 impact primarily driver training instructors and driver training schools, as the rule concerns driver training instructor program requirements. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.4-1 impact primarily driver training instructors and driver training schools, as the rule concerns fees for driver training instructors and driver training schools. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.5-1 impact primarily driver training instructors and driver training schools, as the rule concerns suspension and revocation of driver training instructor and driver training school licenses. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.5-2 impact primarily driver training school owners, as the rule concerns insurance requirements for driver training schools. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.5-3 impact primarily driver training instructors and driver training schools, as the rule concerns the ability of the Bureau to audit or investigate driver training schools. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-1.5-4 impact primarily driver training instructors and driver training schools, as the rule concerns appeal rights after suspension or revocation of driver training instructor or driver training school licenses. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-2-1 impact only a specific subset of the general population, as the rule only concerns the waiver of age and experience requirements for driver's licenses. As such, the only individuals it impacts are individuals seeking a driver's license that lack either the age or experience requirements (which is primarily citizens under 16 years of age) and are seeking waiver of these requirements. This is a very small number of individuals. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-4-1 impact only driver training schools and driver training instructors, as the rule explicitly states that those are the only individuals the rule applies to. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-4-1.1 through 140 IAC 4-4-1.3 all primarily impact driver training school owners. 4-4-1.1 concerns theoretical training standards that driver schools must provide. 4-4-1.2 concerns behind-the-wheel training standards that driver schools must provide. 4-4-1.3 concerns insurance requirements for vehicles used by driver training schools. There are approximately 250 driver training schools in Indiana. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-4-6 primarily concern any driver education students enrolled in licensing courses, as well as driver training schools and instructors as the ones providing the instruction. This amounts to thousands of individuals every year. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-4-7 primarily concern any driver education students enrolled in licensing courses, as well as driver training schools and instructors as the ones providing the instruction. This amounts to thousands of individuals every year. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-5-1 essentially impact all people in Indiana, as the rule concerns examination requirements for any individual whose Indiana license has expired. This is a small number of individuals per year but potentially applies to anybody. The rules contained in 140 IAC 4-5-2 essentially impact any people in Indiana not native to the state, as the rule concerns examination requirements for any individual whose non-Indiana license has expired. This is a small number of individuals per year but potentially applies to a much larger group. As BMV does not track data regarding other state licenses or their expiration, the agency is not able to quantify the impacted parties. The rules contained in 140 IAC 6-1-16.5 impact any vehicle owners or dealers acquiring salvage vehicles or rebuilt vehicles. This is a small number of individuals per year, as most vehicle purchases are not salvage vehicles. The rules contained in 140 IAC 7-1.1-4 impact only individuals with conditions causing the appearance of intoxication. This is a very small amount of the population, as such conditions are not common. As this rule only applies to individuals with very specific medical situations and that have voluntarily disclosed that condition, the impacted population is difficult to quantify. The rules contained in 140 IAC 7-1.2-1 impact any individual in need of an interim license. The number of individuals that require this per year is hard to estimate, but it is available to all Indiana citizens. Therefore, in practice the number of individuals is likely small but has to potential to impact any Indiana citizen. The rules contained in 140 IAC 7-2-9 impact any individual seeking a motorcycle license, as the rule establishes fees for the motorcycle operations skills test. This is thousands of Indiana citizens per year. The rules contained in 140 IAC 7-3-2 impact any individual holding a CDL license in Indiana, as the rule establishes the limit of CDL licenses a driver may have, as well as when it expires. This is thousands of Indiana citizens. The rules contained in 140 IAC 7-3-13 impact primarily CDL skills test examiners, as the rule concerns CDL skills test examiner qualifications. This makes the rule apply to a very small and specific portion of the population. BMV does not track the number of CDL skills test examiners in a centralized data set and therefore cannot quantify the impacted parties. The rules contained in 140 IAC 7-3-14 impact primarily CDL skills test examiners, as the rule concerns CDL skills test examiners that have had their license suspended or revoked. This makes the rule apply to a very small and specific portion of the population. BMV does not track the number of CDL skills test examiners in a centralized data set and therefore cannot quantify the impacted parties. The rules contained in 140 IAC 7-3-18.5 impact primarily CDL skills test examiners, as the rule concerns CDL skills test examiners' requirement to report traffic convictions. This makes the rule apply to a very small and specific portion of the population. BMV does not track the number of CDL skills test examiners in a centralized data set and therefore cannot quantify the impacted parties. The rules contained in 140 IAC 7-6-1 essentially impact all people in Indiana, as the rule concerns the creation of an emergency contact database. This is a public safety rule that applies to all Indiana citizens. The rules contained in 140 IAC 8-3-29 essentially impact all people in Indiana because the rule is intended to provide guidelines for the BMV in the event a customer provides a failed payment method. Since this is a situation that can happen to anyone, the rule can impact any Indiana citizen. The rules contained in 140 IAC 8-6-1 impact any individual that fails the knowledge or skills portion of a driver's license exam. In theory, this is anyone in Indiana; in practice, this is tens of thousands of individuals each year, as most residents do not take the exam in any given year. The rules contained in 140 IAC 9-4-1 impact any individual registering a motorboat in the state of Indiana. As of December 31, 2025, there were 189,642 registered motorboats in Indiana. This has the potential to be any Indiana citizen. The rules contained in 140 IAC 9-4-2.5 impact any individual registering a motorboat in the state of Indiana, or who has already registered a motorboat in Indiana. As of December 31, 2025, there were 189,642 registered motorboats in Indiana. This has the potential to be any Indiana citizen. The rules contained in 140 IAC 9-4-6.5 impact any individual that has registered a motorboat with the state of Indiana but has also registered it with another state. As of December 31, 2025, there were 189,642 registered motorboats in Indiana. This has the potential to be any Indiana citizen, but in practice is a very limited occurrence. IV. Changes in Proposed Rule This is a proposed rule readoption, and thus, there are no changes in the proposed rule readoption.