in-20260708-IR-410260064SNA: RESIDENTIAL ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS
Get alerted when the next rule lands
New rules open for comment on their own schedule. Pick how you want to hear about them — we email you when one appears.
Publishing to members? Embed a live rule tracker on your own site — the proposed rules in your area and the comment deadlines closing on them, updating themselves. Free, one line of HTML.
Create a free account & build one →Summary
The Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) is soliciting public comment on adding, amending, and repealing rules at 410 IAC 6-8.3, regarding residential on-site sewage systems, to: (1) update and add definitions; (2) bring the rule into conformance with statutory updates; (3) update matters incorporated by reference; and (4) update on-site sewage system regulations.
The agency’s own summary, as published.
The rule, in full
35,944 words as published, July 08, 2026. View the original →
TITLE 410 INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Notice of Second Public Comment Period LSA Document #26-64 RESIDENTIAL ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS PURPOSE OF NOTICE The Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) is soliciting public comment on adding, amending, and repealing rules at 410 IAC 6-8.3, regarding residential on-site sewage systems, to: (1) update and add definitions; (2) bring the rule into conformance with statutory updates; (3) update matters incorporated by reference; and (4) update on-site sewage system regulations. HISTORY Notice of First Public Comment Period: 20260311-IR-410260064FNA Regulatory Analysis submitted with Notice of First Public Comment Period: 20260311-IR-410260064RAA Date of First Hearing: April 15, 2026 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Regulatory Analysis submitted with Notice of Second Public Comment Period: 20260708-IR-410260064RAA Notice of Public Hearing: 20260708-IR-410260064PHA CITATIONS AFFECTED: 410 IAC 6-8.3 AUTHORITY: IC 16-19-3-1; IC 16-19-3-4; IC 16-19-3-27; IC 16-41-25-1 OVERVIEW Basic Purpose and Background Under IC 16-19-3-4, the executive board of IDOH has the authority to adopt rules to protect or improve public health in the state, including rules concerning the disposition of excremental and sewage matter through the design, installation, construction, maintenance, and operation of residential on-site sewage systems. Under IC 16-19-3-1, IDOH possesses all powers necessary to fulfill the duties prescribed in statute and for the enforcement of any of the provisions of health laws and rules. During the 2025 legislative session, Section 4 of House Enrolled Act 1052 added IC 16-19-3-34, requiring IDOH to update these rules by July 1, 2026. The parties impacted by the rule changes are homeowners who use on-site sewage systems, on-site sewage system installers, on-site sewage system designers, soil scientists, and local health department staff. The implementation costs of the proposed rule are expected to exceed the threshold set in IC 4-22-2-22.7(c)(6). For purposes of IC 4-22-2-28.1, small businesses affected by this rulemaking may contact the Small Business Regulatory Coordinator: For purposes of IC 4-22-2-28.1, the Small Business Ombudsman designated by IC 5-28-17-6 is: Resources available to regulated entities through the small business ombudsman include the ombudsman's duties stated in IC 5-28-17-6, specifically IC 5-28-17-6(9), investigating and attempting to resolve any matter regarding compliance by a small business with a law, rule, or policy administered by a state agency, either as a party to a proceeding or as a mediator. SUMMARY/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IDOH requested public comment from March 11, 2026, through April 10, 2026, and during the public hearing on April 15, 2026. The comments received and IDOH's responses to the comments are summarized as follows: Comments received from Douglas J. Baer, Dearborn County Health Department Section 8.2: What if the failing system is part of a home expansion to increase the overall number of bedrooms? I would take it that 8.1 would apply but that is unclear here. IDOH Response Pursuant to proposed Section 8.1, an increase in DDF would be considered new construction. Section 20.2: No mention as to expansive clay here. Shrink swell clays are just as limiting if not more so than rock fragments and these clays can be just as problematic, or more so, than soils exhibiting effervescence. IDOH Response IDOH understands the limitations of high shrink/swell clays. Because this was not a topic of recent legislation and was not required to be included in the rule under this timeline, it was determined that the issue of high shrink/swell clays will be addressed in a later revision as this topic will require much discussion and research. Section 50.5: This would include distribution boxes and their associated connections including, but not limited, to effluent dose line connections. The inlet of the box is intended for 4" pipe but has cut outs for 2" pipes. These are very seldom watertight and a different manner in which these smaller dose lines are to connect to distribution boxes needs to be explored. IDOH Response Section 66(b) of the proposed rule requires the material of the distribution box to be watertight; this would include the concrete or plastic from which the box itself is made. Section 66(d) requires the distribution box lid and riser joints to be watertight which is also required in the current rule. The revisions to this rule do not propose to mandate that the pipe penetration ports in a distribution box be watertight; although the installers should take care when installing the pipes to ensure that they are as watertight as reasonably possible. More research must be completed prior to requiring pipe penetration ports to be fully watertight in distribution boxes. Section 51(L): Existing system usage does raise some cause for concern, but the rule, in one shape manner or form goes back to December 1977 and soil reports were not required until quite some time thereafter. A system may have been installed per that code, but would not meet today's code, or even come close to meeting today's code. As for "best judgment" if there was never a permit on file, even under the best intentions, discharge pipes have been found on adjacent properties and the person doing the onsite system inspection may not encounter these and the information provided to the local health department could be faulty. While we all understand hardships can happen, the "best judgment" utilization should not be a crutch to allow use of an existing system. IDOH Response IDOH believes this comment refers to section 52(l) rather than 51(l). This is in regard to allowing connection or reconnection to an existing on-site sewage system for a new or replacement home. This section requires the system to be fully inspected as described in proposed section 54.1. The inspector is required to document what is being used to treat and disperse wastewater. If the inspector cannot adequately, thoroughly, and unquestionably identify a septic tank and a soil absorption field that is not in failure, then permission from the local health department for connection or reconnection cannot be given. Best judgment only comes into consideration if there is a septic tank and a soil absorption field that is in failure, a home is needing remodeled or replaced due to involuntary events, and the DDF of the home is not increasing. Section 52: Municipal sewer rule IC 36-9-23-30 does not include a cost provision. If involving a municipal sewer, then Indiana Code would prevail. Same goes with Regional Sewers, IC 13-26-5-2.5 Exemption from sewer connection. If a failure occurs then connection to the Regional Sewer would apply as it would not be "in proper working order." IDOH Response The codes referenced in the comments do not give authority to local health departments to require connection in any situation. These statutes govern the ability of the utility to require connection to the sewer, and these statutes will not be impacted by this portion of the proposed rule. The changes to the rule will allow local health departments to require sewer connections in very limited circumstances. The Technical Review Panel (TRP) requested that the distance for connection and the cost factor be included as requirements for allowing a local health department to require a home to connect to sewer. This is more restrictive than the utility codes but in no way supersedes those codes. Section 52(e): Again, similar to the note above concerning the 150% cost connection. If it can be connected in accordance with 52(b). IDOH Response See response to section 52 above. The intent of this portion of the rule is not changing, except for expanding the list of technologies that are suitable for residential sewage disposal. This now lists all options available to a homeowner for sewage disposal. Section 53(j): While I agree that the local health department may require an approved aeration unit to address high strength waste, and there is a definition of high strength waste in the definition section, there is no mention on how this determination is to be made, or at least a notation when high strength waste is suspected, the homeowner shall have the wastewater sampled for high strength waste characteristics and a copy of the results submitted to the local health department. IDOH Response When a system fails and best judgment must be used by the local health department to allow a permit for a replacement system, there is a requirement for troubleshooting. Troubleshooting must also include a probable reason for failure of the system. Sampling contents for high strength waste is one technique often employed to try to determine the probable reason for failure. There are standard methods for laboratory testing for high strength waste. Section 53(5): Not only should the slope of all sewers be provided, if the slope of the sewer requires a vertical drop to achieve the required slope should also be included. So, simply requiring slope does not guarantee meeting code. IDOH Response IDOH believes this comment pertains to Section 53(d)(5)(E) rather than 53(5). When a vertical drop is used in the residential sewer, it is necessary to have elevations and calculate slope on both sections of the sewer line, before and after the vertical drop. This would be encompassed by “all sewers.” Section 54: Operating permits, at least in this instance, do not take into consideration any sites utilizing secondary treatment units and/or drip irrigation type systems. These types of system would also require Operating permits along with an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) document verifying ongoing maintenance. In these instances, a notice shall be placed on the deed that the system has a secondary treatment device which requires an O&M for the life of the system. IDOH Response IC 16-19-3-27, which is referenced in this section of the rule, requires the state department to study the use of certain technologies as specified in subdivision (a)(1) of that statute. Subdivision (b)(1) of that statute requires the executive board to adopt reasonable rules to promulgate plans and specifications developed under subsection (a) and allow for issuance of operating permits for those systems installed in compliance with subdivision (b)(1) which refers back to subsection (a). This statute required IDOH to create a method for local health departments to issue operating permits for recirculation media filters, aeration treatment units, drip irrigation, graveless trenches, and new technologies. The three systems listed in this section of the rule are not discussed in this section of the statute but also require regular operation and maintenance to ensure system longevity without failure. (Underlining added for emphasis). Because this statute is referenced in the rule, the local health department may issue operating permits for those system types listed in the statute. Section 54(f): Obtaining and securing service contracts is the responsibility of the owner of the property. Many times the homeowner believes that it is the health department's responsibility. Also, there is no provision for the sale of the property where the new owner becomes responsible for a new service contract in their name and including a new Operating Permit. IDOH Response IDOH agrees that obtaining and securing a service contract is the responsibility of the property owner. When a property is sold, the new owner is responsible for the service contract, and this should be disclosed in the transaction. The local health department is not responsible for obtaining or securing the service contract. Section 54 (g): If revoked, the home could be declared unfit for human habitation due to lack of approved method of sewage disposal. Fines and penalties for continued use of a revoked permit should also be noted here to discourage lapses. IDOH Response The requirements for a declaration of unfit for human habitation and local health department authority are covered under IC 16-41-20-1, IC 16-41-20-4, IC 16-41-20-6, and IC 16-41-20-7 and are not repeated in this rule. Fines and penalties could be covered in a local ordinance but are not dealt with in this rule. Section 61.1: In many instances holding tanks are considered in areas not accessible to sanitary sewers, or areas where an onsite systems can be permitted. In these instances, fines and or penalties should be assessed and the unit (holding tank) not allowed to be in continued use until brought back into compliance. IDOH Response IDOH believes this comment pertains to Section 62.1(l) rather than 61.1. IC 16-41-25-9, referenced in this section of the rule, subsection (f) allows a local health department to suspend, revoke, or deny renewal of an operating permit for violations or problems involving the holding tank that create a risk of harm to human health or the environment. This is not repeated in the rule. The local health department may require connection to sewer or installation of an on-site sewage system in these scenarios, if they are viable options for the site. Otherwise, the local health department would need to enforce the requirement for proper operation and maintenance. Section 66: Watertight. Again referring back to 2"dose line connections to an inlet port, the port itself is designed for 4" pipe connections, not 2". While there are "cut outs" these are seldom water tight, and even if initially water tight, the wear on the cut will promote seepage. The connections should be made to fit the intended purpose of the inlet port. If a boot needs to be installed similar to a dosing tank, then this should be noted to the box manufacturer that a dosing system will be used. IDOH Response Section 66(b) of the proposed rule requires the material of the distribution box to be watertight; this would include the concrete or plastic from which the box itself is made. Section 66(d) requires the distribution box lid and riser joints to be watertight which is also required in the current rule. The revisions to this rule do not propose to mandate that the pipe penetration ports be watertight; although the installers should take care when installing the pipes to ensure that they are as watertight as reasonably possible. More research must be completed prior to requiring pipe penetration ports to be fully watertight. Section 66(d): Risers to surface can be outfitted similar to tank or dose tank risers and cast in place on the distribution box lid. IDOH Response IDOH agrees that either method outlined in the comment, as well as other options, are available for this purpose. Section 70, Table IV: Memorandum 11-1-2023 placed shrink swell clays into a requiring special attention when encountered. This is not reflected in this portion of the rule. The memorandum stated that increased system sizes and/or limiting layers could be attributed to these layers. I agree that these soils are problematic and some notation of these characteristics in this table should be noted. IDOH Response IDOH understands the limitations of high shrink/swell clays for on-site sewage systems. Because this was not a topic of recent legislation and was not required to be included in the rule under this timeline, it was determined that the issue of high shrink/swell clays will be addressed in a later revision as this topic will require much discussion and research. Comments from Jason Owens, Owens Sewer Service I have reviewed the possible upcoming changes, and these are the changes that I would like to mention either for change or leave as is. 410 IAC 6-8.3-16.1 “Fixed reference point” defined: Can we change this to state that the fixed reference point to remain after the project is completed? It seems as though this is a "temporary benchmark" 410 IAC 6-8.3-50.1 IDOH Response IDOH cannot mandate that a fixed reference point remain in place after the on-site sewage system is installed. The purpose of the fixed reference point is so that the local health department can ensure that the system is designed and installed in the area of the soil evaluations. A fixed reference point is used to measure horizontal distances, and a temporary benchmark is used to measure vertical distances. In some situations, they could be the same point, but they do not have to be the same. 410 IAC 6-8.3-33.2 “Residential on-site sewage system repair 410 IAC 6-8.3-33.3 “Residential on-site sewage system replacement Replacing a structurally failed (septic, dosing, holding) tank/ D-box would fall under repair or replacement part of the Rule? IDOH Response “Replacement” refers to a construction permit issued for the replacement of a soil absorption field, which requires a soil evaluation to be completed. The replacement permit may also include any other components as needed for the system. “Repair” essentially includes anything other than the replacement of a soil absorption field. A repair typically would not require a soil evaluation to be completed. Installing a new tank or distribution box alone would be a system repair. 410 IAC 6-8.3-43 "Soil absorption system" or "soil absorption field" Why does the D-box have to be watertight if is considered part of the soil absorption system? 410 IAC 6-8.3-50.5 “Watertight” IDOH Response Section 66(b) of the proposed rule requires the material of the distribution box to be watertight; this would include the concrete or plastic from which the box itself is made. Section 66(d) requires the distribution box lid and riser joints to be watertight which is also required in the current rule. Ensuring that the distribution box material is watertight prevents spot loading in the area of the distribution box where effluent is not supposed to be discharged to the soil. Discharge of effluent immediately around the distribution box can cause the box to move and/or become unlevel. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53 Construction permits Typographical error: Sec. 53. (a) For a dwelling or place of residence that will not be connected to a sanitary "sewerage" IDOH Response This is not a typographical error. Sewerage is the correct term. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53 Construction permits j... The aeration unit may not be required if the homeowner agrees to an appropriate plan approved by the local health officer to reduce the waste strength in another way. How will this be enforced? IDOH Response This will be enforced by the permitting authority, the local health department. The owner would have to develop a plan to reduce waste strength, and submit that to the local health department for approval. The local health department can require intermittent testing to confirm the waste strength is lowered. If the system should fail again due to high strength waste, this can be used to require an aerobic treatment unit. 410 IAC 6-8.3-60 Septic tanks: general requirements How does this remain correct with the law allowing surface discharge (when conditions are met)? This is contradicting the law for the counties that currently and may allow surface discharging. IDOH Response Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 regulates only residential on-site sewage systems; it does not regulate on-site residential sewage discharging disposal systems which are regulated under IC 13-18-12-9. This rule reference describes a septic tank which is part of a residential on-site sewage system which cannot discharge. 410 IAC 6-8.3-74 Subsurface trench on-site sewage systems: general design and construction requirements. Soil loading rate in gpd/sq. ft. gpd/sq. ft2 (should be either sqft or ft2). Looks like the theme is ft2. IDOH Response This was proposed to change to ft2 throughout the rule; however, this was an LSA change after TRP approval that needs to be corrected. 410 IAC 6-8.3-90 Abandonment of an on-site sewage system ("either be" should not be excluded to keep the options open) IDOH Response Regarding subsection 90(b)(4), the proposed rule includes the same three options as the current rule for tank abandonment. This section offers removal of a tank with disposition in a landfill as one option with two other options also offered as crushing the tank and backfilling or filling the tank with flowable fill. IDOH has no objection to changing the order of the three options listed in order to list removal and disposal at a licensed landfill as the third option rather than the first option. The “either” is not needed due to the “or” after option (B). Additional Comments from Jason Owens, Owens Sewer Service If distribution boxes are to be brought to grade for all systems can there be an allowance for the installer for dosing and sand-lined systems? If the system gets converted to one or the other later, it must follow the rule at that time. Distribution boxes to grade on a dosed system may be problematic if the piping after the box is not allowing flow. The at grade distribution box cover/lid now becomes the weak point for the pressured system. On sand lined systems, the box is allowed in the sand bed and to meet the 3-1 grading, there may be difficulty in getting the cover and growth for long and narrow sand beds. In today's onsite systems, permits and diagrams are already required at the County level. Bringing the distribution box access to grade creates cost at the time of purchase/installation, but maintenance throughout the years due to damaging the at-grade access points like lids and risers. At-grade may be a bigger problem because of damage components making their way downstream and clogging the leaching system. Some may say it's better for the contractor to bring them to grade so that they can make money later due to maintenance, but the Rule is to better manage the onsite systems effectively and efficiently, not employ contractors. IDOH Response Regarding section 66(d), IDOH understands the concerns expressed but feels that the benefits of having distribution box risers to the surface surpass the potential issues expressed. Many local ordinances previously required distribution box risers to grade on all distribution boxes, and there have been no known issues with these risers to grade. In fact, when inspection or troubleshooting is needed, risers to grade on distribution boxes make the boxes much easier to locate and remove for inspection or troubleshooting. Risers to final grade have been required on septic and dosing tanks since 1990, and the distribution box riser would be very similar to a tank riser to grade which all homeowners with an on-site sewage system will have at least one of on their septic tank. IDOH is agreeable to modifying this requirement to require risers to grade only on distribution boxes that use more than one (1) outlet to distribute effluent to the soil absorption field(s). This will eliminate most residential sand lined systems from having a distribution box riser installed as most only have one port that discharges effluent to the soil absorption field. Comments Received from Gary Hudson, IRSS with response from IDOH
1. Section 46 (2) states: " if shallower, a layer that cannot be readily penetrated".
I believe this statement should be rewritten to require the soil to be described to the depth of a limiting layer if less than 60 inches rather than to a layer that is not readily penetrated. How is a “cannot readily penetrated layer” defined? A rocky layer that may not be readily penetrated when using hand tools can be with a backhoe. Not readily penetrable doesn't mean that it is unsuitable soil. If the most limiting soil description is used to determine the minimum specs for the site (which it should be), and the description with the not readily penetrated layer is the most limiting description, then the property owner may be paying for a septic system more expensive than necessary had a backhoe been utilized to determine the suitability of the soil in and under the layer. IDOH Response Regarding section 46(2), IDOH has no objection to modifying the text to read: 2. Section 56 (f) (1) (E): “the location of soil evaluation sites related to at least two (2) fixed reference points” As a soil scientist, I am strongly opposed to this proposed change. On many of the sites I've been on, that's not even practical. Not all soil evaluations are done around a home or on a small parcel. Whoever suggested this change evidently has never stood out in the middle of a large field and tried to figure out what to use as a fixed point. I just finished a commercial site where my closest fixed point was between 645 and 787 feet away from my soil pits. A second fixed point, had I needed one as proposed in this rule revision, would have been approximately 1100 feet away measuring off Google Earth. I wouldn't even be able to see my flags at that distance on a flat site, let alone if there is a hill in between. And if the two points are measured at an angle from the soil boring/pit, what's the angle? How do you replicate that when the flags/stakes left by the soil scientist are no longer there? Do you pull two tapes from each of the two points until they cross and hope there is nothing blocking you from pulling the tapes in a straight line for that distance? How many people own a tape measure longer than 300 feet? As part of our field exam to maintain our soil scientist certification, we have been required to locate a boring site by measuring from a single point in one of the four directions on a compass, and then at a 90 degree angle (for example, 200 feet north and 145 feet west) to the boring site. I've been doing this for 27 years and have no problem replicating my boring/pit locations. It has been suggested by some that a flag or stake be placed in the vicinity of the proposed leach field and used as a second reference point when nothing else is available. I don't agree as those could be easily moved by the property owner who wants to move his leach field after a soil evaluation has been completed but doesn't want to pay for another evaluation. IDOH Response Regarding section 56(f)(1)(E), IDOH agrees that on some sites, as described in the comment, it could be difficult if not impossible to identify two fixed reference points from which to measure. IDOH recommends rewording this to state that when reasonably feasible, soil borings or pits should be measured from two fixed reference points. If two fixed reference points cannot be reasonably located and used, one fixed reference point must be used. Comments received from the Indiana Onsite Wastewater Professionals Association (IOWPA) Key Areas of Industry Feedback
1. Distribution Box (D-Box) Risers to Grade
The proposed requirement that distribution boxes include risers extending to grade generated significant discussion. Benefits Identified Several participants supported this requirement because risers: Concerns Raised However, several concerns were also raised: Recommendation Consider allowing flexibility in the rule so that risers to grade are required only where appropriate for system design or inspection needs, particularly for gravity systems used for flow equalization. Additional clarification may also be helpful for proprietary systems such as Presby and ATL systems. IDOH Response Regarding section 66(d), IDOH understands the concerns expressed but feels that the benefits of having distribution box risers to the surface surpass the potential issues expressed. Many local ordinances previously required distribution box risers to grade on all distribution boxes, and there have been no known issues with these risers to grade. In fact, when inspection or troubleshooting is needed, risers to grade on distribution boxes makes the boxes much easier to locate and remove for inspection or troubleshooting. Risers to final grade have been required on septic and dosing tanks since 1990, and the distribution box riser would be very similar to a tank riser to grade which all homeowners with an on-site sewage system will have at least one of on their septic tank. IDOH is not opposed to modifying this section to require risers to grade only on distribution boxes that utilize more than one (1) outlet to distribute effluent to the soil absorption field(s). This will eliminate most residential sand lined systems from having a distribution box riser installed as most only have one port that discharges effluent to the soil absorption field.
2. Watertightness Standards
Participants discussed the proposed definition of “watertight,” particularly as it applies to distribution boxes. Issues Identified Recommendation Maintain the requirement for watertight components but clarify: IDOH Response Regarding section 50.5, IDOH stresses that all components of an on-site sewage system must be as watertight as possible to prevent infiltration of groundwater into the system and exfiltration of sewage out of the system at points that are not designed to discharge sewage or effluent. Preventing groundwater infiltration will prevent hydraulic overload of the system due to excess water entering the system prior to the point of discharge into the soil. This infiltration directs water that does not need to be treated in the system to the soil absorption field that is sized to treat only the wastewater generated in the home. Excess water entering the soil absorption field can cause system failure. Exfiltration, or the leakage of untreated sewage into the ground outside of the soil absorption field, such as around tanks and distribution boxes, can cause points of contamination and can easily make a distribution box become unlevel resulting in unequal flow to parts of the soil absorption field. Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3, and preceding rules, have always required tanks to be watertight. The updates to this rule provide a standard for testing of new and existing tanks to confirm watertightness. Section 66(b) of the proposed rule requires the material of the distribution box to be watertight; this would include the concrete or plastic from which the box itself is made. Section 66(d) requires the distribution box lid and riser joints to be watertight which is also required in the current rule. The revisions to this rule do not propose to mandate that the pipe penetration ports be watertight; although the installers should take care when installing the pipes to ensure that they are as watertight as reasonably possible. The leakage from distribution boxes around pipe penetration points may be further discussed at the next rule revision. It is unnecessary to include that perforated piping is not required to be watertight. The purpose of the perforated pipe in a trench is to distribute effluent to the soil. The rule also provides requirements for perforation size and spacing for this piping. Joints in all piping must be watertight so that effluent does not discharge at points not designed to discharge. Joints that are not watertight can lead to large discharges of effluent in one spot rather than effluent discharges along the length of a trench or bed.
3. Operating Permits and Inspection Requirements
The proposed rule includes provisions regarding operating permits and inspection requirements. Issues Raised Participants expressed uncertainty regarding: Additional Concerns Industry professionals noted challenges with inspection documentation, particularly when: Recommendation Clarify: IDOH Response Regarding section 54, Operating permits, local health departments may require written operating permits for any system which is approved under best judgment and/or for any sanitary vault privies. Local health departments are required to issue operating permits for holding tanks. IC 16-19-3-27, which is referenced in this section of the rule, requires the state department to study the use of certain technologies as specified in subdivision (a)(1) of that statute. Subdivision (b)(1) of that statute requires the executive board to adopt reasonable rules to promulgate plans and specifications developed under subsection (a) and allow for issuance of operating permits for those systems installed in compliance with subdivision (b)(1) which refers back to subsection (a). Statute requires for allowance of local health departments to issue operating permits for recirculation media filters, aeration treatment units, drip irrigation, graveless trenches, and new technologies. The three system types (best judgment, holding tanks, and sanitary vault privies) listed in this section of the rule are not discussed in the referenced section of the statute but also require regular operation and maintenance to ensure system longevity without failure. Regarding section 54.1, Requirements for evaluation inspections of existing on-site sewage systems do not apply to local health departments conducting final or during-construction installation inspections. Local health departments are not directed to conduct inspections or evaluations of any existing on-site sewage systems for purposes of connection or reconnection, for use of best judgment, or for operating permit renewal. These types of inspections are typically done by a contracted third party, and this section of the rule outlines what is required for those inspections. If a local health department conducts these types of evaluation inspections, the same requirements would be applicable. The purpose of an on-site sewage system inspection is to document each system component, their locations, and their functionality. Part of that documentation is to provide sound evidence that either the system is functioning without failure or malfunction or the system is failing and/or malfunctioning. This rule provides very clear definitions of failure and malfunction, and those definitions need to be carefully considered and used in appropriate context when determining system failure or malfunction. If the system is described accurately and thoroughly as it is at the time of inspection, the evidence provided should support the inspector's determinations. It is understood that a system failure may be reversed or a malfunction corrected after the inspection is completed. If that is the case, a second inspection may be conducted after te system is repaired or replaced which documents that the system is no longer failing or malfunctioning. The process used to correct the failure or malfunction should be documented within the new inspection report. An honest, thorough, and accurate inspection which only uses the terms failure and malfunction as defined by the rule should not incur liability upon the inspector. IDOH believes this last point in this comment pertains to final inspections of installed systems as required by Section 53(l) rather than proposed section 54.1. Final and during-construction inspection procedures would not have to be included in a local ordinance. Pursuant to IC 16-41-25-7, local health departments, counties, cities, and towns may not adopt requirements, restrictions, or conditions concerning residential on-site sewage systems that are more stringent than the state rule. All previous ordinances that varied from the state rule are void and unenforceable; this would seem to include policies or procedures published outside of a local ordinance. If a local health department would want additional requirements in a local ordinance for system inspections, that ordinance would have to be approved by the TRP prior to it being enforceable in the jurisdiction.
4. Best Judgment Provisions
Participants discussed how the proposed rule references the use of “best judgment” by health departments. Concerns Raised Recommendation Provide additional clarification regarding: IDOH Response Regarding section 53(i), the rule, now and previously, has stated that the local health department may only use best judgment when a system is failing and the replacement soil absorption field cannot meet the requirements of the rule. The rule requires that the limitations of the site, the written results of an inspection of the existing system, and the written soil evaluation report are taken into consideration. Every situation differs significantly in the limitations of the site and the soil at the site, and, therefore, making this section more specific than this would tend to prevent local health departments from being able to allow variances to the rule when the rule requirements cannot be met for existing homes. The rule cannot possibly cover every situation that could occur. The clarifications that are provided in the proposed rule are intended to foster consistent application throughout the state. As with any decision of the local health department staff, appeals may be made to the local health office and/or the local board of health. Subsection 55(f) of the rule provides further details on appealing decisions of the local health department, and subsection 55(g) states that the parties may use the appeal procedures set forth in IC 4-21.5, Administrative Orders and Procedures. With the revisions made to this rule, all best judgment decisions made by the local health department are required to be listed on the construction permit issued for the on-site sewage system for full transparency.
5. Holding Tanks and Regulatory Conflicts
Participants expressed concerns regarding language related to holding tanks and wastewater discharge. Potential Statutory Conflict Some stakeholders noted that the proposed rule language may conflict with existing state statutes regarding wastewater discharge and holding tanks. Questions were raised regarding whether the rule could inadvertently regulate areas that fall under: Recommendation Review the proposed language to ensure consistency with existing state statutes and clarify regulatory jurisdiction where necessary. IDOH Response Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 regulates on-site sewage systems which are defined as a septic tank and soil absorption field, a sanitary vault privy, or a sewage holding tank. On-site residential sewage discharging disposal systems are not regulated under this rule, nor are they regulated by IDOH. Section 62.1 of the rule is proposed for inclusion in this rule to supplement and clarify the requirements of IC 16-41-25-9 which gives local health departments the authority to issue construction permits for holding tanks and the ability to issue operating permits for holding tanks as well as to revoke or suspend and renew operating permits. Holding tanks, as described in this statute and in the proposed rule do not discharge. IC 16-41-25-9 gives IDEM the authority to create a rule for sewage holding tanks, and if IDEM does create a rule, then local health departments shall report to IDEM concerning the holding tanks. The statute referenced for onsite residential sewage discharging disposal systems does require a local health department to report to the department of environmental management. Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 and the proposed revisions do not impact that requirement or that technology.
6. Septic Tank Abandonment Procedures
The proposed rule includes language requiring septic tanks to be removed and disposed of at licensed landfills. Concerns Raised Industry participants noted that: Recommendation Modify the rule language so that removal and landfill disposal are one acceptable option, but not the only method. The rule should continue allowing: IDOH Response Regarding subsection 90(b)(4), the proposed rule still includes the same three options as the current rule for tank abandonment. This section offers removal of a tank with disposition in a landfill as one option with two other options also offered as crushing the tank and backfilling or filling the tank with flowable fill. IDOH has no objection to changing the order of the three options listed in order to list removal and disposal at a licensed landfill as the third option rather than the first option. In all cases, all three options are always available to the installer.
7. Drainage Way Definition
Concerns were raised regarding revisions to the definition of “drainage way.” Issues Raised Recommendation Provide additional clarification within the definition to ensure consistent interpretation. IDOH Response Regarding section 14, this change was requested by the member of the TRP representing the Indiana Registry of Soil Scientists, and explanation was provided during the TRP meeting where it was discussed. Intermittent streams, often referred to as just “streams,” flow seasonally and typically have regular flow during wet periods and are dry at other times. Streams (intermittent streams) are addressed in section 57, Table I, Separation distances. There are defined horizontal separation requirements for streams. The rule does not have a specified horizontal separation distance to a drainageway; the rule only requires that soil absorption fields not be located wholly or partly in a drainageway, or an ephemeral stream. IDOH is not opposed to changing section 57, Table 1 from “stream” to “perennial or intermittent stream.” IDOH is also not opposed to modifying the verbiage in section 14 to that shown below. "Drainageway" means the channel portion of the landscape, or ephemeral stream, in which surface water or rainwater runoff flows to a lower elevation.
8. Soil Absorption System Considerations
Several technical issues related to soil absorption systems were discussed. Topics Raised Participants acknowledged that some of these issues may be better addressed in future rule revisions but flagged them as areas for continued review. IDOH Response
9. Professional Standards and Certification
Participants reviewed provisions related to installer qualifications. Clarification Requested It was confirmed that the rule requires installers to be both: This aligns with statutory requirements. Recommendation Ensure the rule language clearly reflects the statutory requirement using “AND” rather than “OR.” IDOH Response Regarding section 52.1(b)(2)(C), as stated in this subsection, this portion of the proposed rule is in compliance with IC 16-41-25-12(b); however, IDOH is not opposed to modifying the language for competency testing as shown below.
10. Terminology and Editorial Issues
Participants identified several minor wording and formatting issues in the proposed rule. Examples included: While minor, these changes could improve clarity and consistency in the rule. IDOH Response Regarding the use of lineal vs linear, the rule currently uses lineal four times, three times in section 71 and once in section 73, and linear is not currently used in the rule. Both sections 71 and 73 are proposed for revision. IDOH is not opposed to changing “lineal” to “linear” in the rule. Regarding the requirements for soil absorption fields to be “along the contour” of the site, in five instances the rule requires trenches and elevated sand mounds to be placed “along the contour.” In two places, it requires soil absorption fields to be constructed “on contour,” and in one place, it requires trenches to “follow the contour.” It would be best to make these consistent; however, much work and discussion would be needed to adequately describe what is meant by these phrases and determine which is most applicable to this rule, and this is likely better suited to the next revision when there is not such a tight timeline for revision. Initially the rule revision changed all instances of sq. ft. to ft2; however, during editing, LSA made changes to what was previously approved by the TRP. IDOH will change these back to consistent formatting. IDOH is unaware of any other formatting issues in equations or technical references, but will thoroughly review for anymore. Comments from Carl J. Becker, Recreation Vehicle Indiana Council On behalf of the Recreation Vehicle Indiana Council, please consider our concerns about the potential devastating impact of certain modifications to 410 IAC 6-8.3 et. seq. Initially, we must first look to the definition of "dwelling" or "residence" which is not being modified. Inasmuch as the definition provides “place used or intended to be used as a place of seasonal… human habitation”, these Rules arguably could have always been applied to recreational vehicles (“RVs”). However, 410 IAC 6-8.3 et. seq. has not been historically applied to recreational vehicles. Rather, the IDOH has utilized its enforcement power under 410 IAC 6-7.1 et. seq. related to campgrounds to ensure the proper and healthy collection and treatment of the sewage arising from RVs. This approach appears to have provided the RVs, the campground, and surrounding communities healthy, proper, and legal sewage treatment. In the modifications proposed, a definition of “Recreational Vehicle” is being included and the term is used in several places throughout the proposed Rule. As such, it is clear the IDOH now intends to pursue the regulation and enforcement of sewage collection and treatment by RVs although there had not been any glaring issues creating this need. In fact, the IDOH now would be pursuing significantly greater and onerous authority and demands on the owners of the RVs and the campgrounds at which these vehicles are parked. One of the most significant concerns is in 410 IAC 6-8.3-12 which creates an untenable definition for RVs and the amount of daily sewage flow. This definition overwhelmingly overstates what any RV would ever have as DDF. Using the 75 gallons multiplied by the maximum occupancy could easily create a DDF of 600 gallons. This is an absurd figure. An RV generally will produce at most 45-55 gallons of DDF. Further, in 410 IAC 6-8.3-32 "Residential on-site sewage system" or "on-site sewage system" defined, 410 IAC 6-8.3-52 General sewage disposal requirements, 410 IAC 6-8.3-53 Construction permits, and otherwise throughout the Rule, the use of the term “dwelling” and “residence” create substantial obligations and burdens on RV owners, and campgrounds by logical and realistic extension, which, if enforced, would create unworkable situations. This arises as the Rule does not recognize or address the actual means by which sewage is and has always been collected by and from RVs and how campgrounds ensure the sewage is properly treated. Simply put, the proposed modifications to 410 IAC 6-8.3 et. seq. are not addressing the reality of sewage issues which might arise with RVs. Further, if enforced, it would create unworkable and untenable circumstances for the RV owners who travel to the Hoosier state and the campgrounds at which they are parked. We would suggest the definition of “dwelling” or “residence” be modified to remove RVs from its definition completely and delete the three other references to “recreational vehicles”. In this manner, RVs would be removed from the application of the Rule. The IDOH would still have its enforcement power under 410 IAC 6-7.1 et. seq. related to campgrounds to ensure the collection and treatment of the sewage from the RVs is properly addressed. If indeed there are issues related to sewage collection and treatment with RVs, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the IDOH in developing a Rule which addresses the issues. The Recreation Vehicle Indiana Council greatly appreciates the opportunity for this comment opportunity and look forward to addressing the issues raised herein collaboratively with the IDOH. IDOH Response The intent of including recreational vehicles in this rule is to regulate those recreational vehicles not located at a campground, not those connected to sanitary sewer, and not those connected to a commercial on-site sewage system (such as many campgrounds are connected to). The intent with the inclusion of recreational vehicle in the definition of DDF is to regulate those recreational vehicles that are connected to a residential on-site sewage system only. Recreational vehicles used in this manner would not be regulated under 410 IAC 6-7.1 et. seq. IDOH is not opposed to clarifying this in the rule revision. Local health departments have expressed that they are seeing this use for RVs increasingly, and owners do not want to have to take their sewage to a dump station when they are living there full time. IDOH is not opposed to modifying the definition of Design Daily Flow (DDF) in section 12(d) by adding the bolded text in the subsection below. Comments from L.A. Brown Sec 50.5 Watertight defined------------'Pipe penetrations must result in a connection that does not allow liquid to flow around the pipe penetration' Alice's response after the Town Hall meeting: Section 66(b) of the proposed rule requires the distribution box material to be watertight. It does not require the pipe penetrations to be watertight, although, they should be made as watertight as possible. The definition of watertight (section 50.5) only requires a visual examination of a distribution box to determine sufficient watertightness. IAPMO standards do not apply to distribution boxes. If Alice is correct, the Watertight definition needs to include her interpretation. IDOH Response The definition of watertight in the proposed rule is intended to mean that the pipe penetration ports in all tanks must be watertight so that water does not flow into or out of the structure around the pipe penetrations in the tank. The portion of this definition dealing with distribution boxes does not indicate that the pipe penetration ports in a distribution box have to be watertight. Section 66(d) indicates that the material from which the distribution box is made must be watertight. IDOH is not opposed to removing the following from the definition of watertight so that this definition only pertains to tanks. For new or existing distribution boxes, a visual examination should be completed. Sec 52(b): General sewage disposal……..residential outbuilding, if applicable----needs wording change IDOH Response Regarding section 52(b), IDOH is unclear about the concern. This section states that if a system fails, the local health department may require the residence and the residential outbuilding, if applicable, to connect to sewer. Not all residences have a residential outbuilding with plumbing. Regarding the last line of the comment, this appears to pertain to Section 52(i). The IDOH feels that this wording is correct the way this subsection has been modified by LSA. However, IDOH has no objection to changing this sentence as follows. Sec 53 Construction Permits IDOH Response Regarding section 53(l), final and during-construction inspection procedures would not have to be included in a local ordinance. Pursuant to IC 16-41-25-7, local health departments, counties, cities, and towns may not adopt requirements, restrictions, or conditions concerning residential on-site sewage systems that are more stringent than the state rule. All previous ordinances that varied from the state rule are void and unenforceable; this would also seem to include policies or procedures published outside of a local ordinance. If a local health department would want additional requirements in a local ordinance for system inspections, that ordinance would have to be approved by the TRP prior to it being enforceable in the jurisdiction. This section of the proposed rule discusses covering of subsurface portions of a system which could include tanks, piping, subsurface drainage, trenches, or even the site preparation for an elevated system. The intent would be to leave an elevated system uncovered until inspection is completed. While this specific section of the current rule was not proposed for change, IDOH is not opposed to clarifying the requirement for elevated systems by adding the bolded text below to 53(l)(2). Sec 54(a) Operating Permits: Are operating permits only for best judgement, sewage holding tanks, privies, etc? IDOH Response Regarding section 54, Operating permits, local health departments may require written operating permits for any system which is approved under best judgment and/or for any sanitary vault privies. Local health departments are required to issue operating permits for holding tanks. However, section IC 16-19-3-27, which is referenced in this section of the rule, requires the state department to study the use of certain technologies as specified in subdivision (a)(1) of that statute. Subdivision (b)(1) of that statute requires the executive board to adopt reasonable rules to promulgate plans and specifications developed under subsection (a) and allow for issuance of operating permits for those systems installed in compliance with subdivision (b)(1), which refers back to subsection (a). This statute require IDOH to create a method for local health departments to issue operating permits for recirculation media filters, aeration treatment units, drip irrigation, graveless trenches, and new technologies. The three system types (best judgment, holding tanks, and sanitary vault privies) listed in this section of the rule are not discussed in this section of the statute but also require regular operation and maintenance to ensure system longevity without failure. Additionally, proposed section 62.1(j) of this rule requires operating permits be issued for holding tanks in accordance with IC 16-41-25-9. Therefore, for additional clarity and accuracy, IDOH recommends changing section 54(a) to read as follows. Sec 54.1 Requirements for Inspection IDOH Response IDOH believes that this comment pertains to section 54.1(e). In the beginning of this section, under (a), it states that this section only applies to those inspections required for connection or reconnection, best judgment, and operating permit renewal; it also pertains to any other system evaluation inspection that will be submitted to the local health department for inclusion in the permit file. Inspection reports for anything other than connection or reconnection, best judgment, and operating permit renewal are not required to be submitted to the local health department. However, frequently citizens will bring an inspection report to the local health department for interpretation and/or guidance purposes. The reports may be put on file in the local health department in which case the reports need to be as detailed and thorough as the requirements of this section. Sec 54.1 Requirements for Inspection (cont) (e) (2) Indication of failure…………if inspector uses the word failure is he liable? IDOH Response The purpose of an on-site sewage system inspection is to document each system component, their locations, and their functionality. Part of that documentation is to provide sound evidence that either the system is functioning without failure or malfunction, or the system is failing and/or malfunctioning. This rule provides very clear definitions of failure and malfunction, and those definitions need to be carefully considered and used in appropriate context when determining system failure or malfunction. If the system is described accurately and thoroughly as it is at the time of inspection, the evidence provided should support the inspector's determinations. It is understood that a system failure may be reversed or a malfunction corrected. If that is the case, a second inspection may be conducted after the system is repaired or replaced which documents that the system is no longer failing or malfunctioning. The process used to correct the failure or malfunction should be documented within the new inspection report. An honest, thorough, and accurate inspection which only uses the terms failure and malfunction as defined by the rule should not incur liability upon the inspector. Sec 56 On-site evaluation IDOH Response Section 56(h) requires all soil reports that will be used for obtaining a construction permit for a residential on-site sewage system to be submitted to the local health department directly by the registered professional soil scientist. This does not mean that the owner has to have the soil report submitted to the local health department if he/she decides they will not be obtaining a construction permit; or they can have the soil scientist submit it at a later date when the decision has been made. With the report coming directly from the soil scientist, it ensures that there have been no changes to the report other than by the soil scientist. Reports submitted prior to the effective date of this rule would not be affected by this proposed change. Sec 59 Drainage IDOH Response Regarding section 59(h), IDOH agrees that this is a good change. Regarding section 59(n), the change noted in the comment was made by LSA after approval of the draft by the TRP. IDOH agrees that the second “shall” in this subsection needs to be retained as is. Sec 62.1 Sewage holding tanks IDOH Response Regarding section 62.1(j), all holding tanks are required to have operating permits from the local health department. The holding tanks require much more frequent service than other types of on-site sewage systems, and, therefore, operating permits are a necessity for oversight of these types of systems to prevent overflows and health hazards. Operating permits for all other types of systems are optional for the local health department. Sec 64 Outlet Filter IDOH Response Regarding section 64(c)(4), the change noted in the comment was made by LSA after approval of the draft by the TRP. IDOH agrees that this needs to remain as “two or more” tanks. Sec 65 Distribution Box IDOH Response Regarding section 66(d), IDOH understands the concerns expressed but feels that the benefits of having distribution box risers to the surface surpass the potential issues expressed. Many local ordinances previously required distribution box risers to grade on all distribution boxes, and there have been no known issues with these risers to grade. In fact, when inspection or troubleshooting is needed, risers to grade on distribution boxes makes the boxes much easier to locate and remove lids for inspection or troubleshooting. Risers to final grade have been required on septic and dosing tanks since 1990, and the distribution box riser would be very similar to a tank riser to grade which all homeowners with an on-site sewage system will have at least one of on their septic tank. Several installers, inspectors, and local health departments have expressed strong opinions in favor of the benefits of distribution box risers. IDOH is agreeable to modify this section to require risers to grade only on distribution boxes that use more than one (1) outlet to distribute effluent to the soil absorption field(s). This will eliminate most residential sand lined systems from having a distribution box riser installed as most only have one port that discharges effluent to the soil absorption field. Sec 90 Abandonment of system This must be changed back to the 2024 version of the Rule IDOH Response Regarding subsection 90(b)(4), the proposed rule includes the same three options as the current rule for tank abandonment. This section offers removal of a tank with disposition in a landfill as one option with two other options also offered as crushing the tank and backfilling or filling the tank with flowable fill. IDOH has no objection to changing the order of the three options listed in order to list removal and disposal at a licensed landfill as the third option rather than the first option. Comments from Doug Meeks recommend the following changes to the proposed rule: Sec. 45 recommended to read as follows: “Soil loading rate” means the maximum allowable amount of septic tank effluent, expressed in U.S. gallons, that may be applied daily per square foot of soil. IDOH Response IDOH is not opposed to this change. The RPSS representative for the IRSS on the TRP previously specifically asked for “allowable” to be removed from this definition and that will not be replaced. Sec. 32 recommended to read as follows: “Residential on-site sewage system” or “on-site sewage system” means all equipment and devices necessary for proper conduction, collection, storage or on-site treatment and dispersal of sewage from: IDOH Response IDOH is not opposed to this change, except the “or” should be considered to be left as “and.” While it is understood that a holding tank only stores septage, other components of a septic tank and soil absorption field may serve the purpose of storage and treatment. Sec. 33.1 (4) The liquid level in a dosing tank above the level of the pump activation float; IDOH Response IDOH is not opposed to this change. Sec. 35.1 Omit the word “direct” IDOH Response IDOH prefers to leave this definition as is. Sec. 54.1 (d) (4) add (G) to read as follows: “any blockage or collapse observed in perforated piping in the soil absorption system.” IDOH Response In theory, IDOH is not opposed to this change; however, it may best be stated, “(4)(C) “any blockage or collapse of soil absorption field components” because not all soil absorption fields have perforated piping in the soil absorption field (i.e., chambers). Distribution boxes are also part of the soil absorption field as provided in the definition in section 43. Sec. 66 Adding the provision for distribution box risers is great! All distribution boxes should have a riser to grade, so that equal amounts of effluent to each SAF line can be insured and adjusted as needed at any future time. The likelihood of freezing is minimal due to the heat energy of the bacteria laden wastewater. Just as with septic tank risers, any disadvantages, such as hitting them with a mower, etc., are definitely outweighed by the benefits of easy access for inspection or adjustments as needed. This provision should also say something to the effect of requiring D-box risers both with new construction and replacement of an existing distribution box. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. All new distribution boxes that use more than one outlet will be required to have risers to grade. Another change that should definitely be made is as follows: Several places in the rule, the word “lineal” is used. It is incorrect to use this word with regard to distance or in any scientific or engineering context. The correct word that should be used is “linear.” Lineal is used several places, including a couple of rule charts, and should be changed to “linear” feet. This septic rule is the only place in any type of scientific or engineering document that I have ever read that used the word lineal. The word lineal does not express measurement, but it is commonly used in the context of ancestry. IDOH Response Regarding the use of lineal vs linear, the rule currently uses “lineal” four times, three times in section 71 and once in section 73, and “linear” is not used in the rule. Both sections 71 and 73 are proposed for revision. IDOH is not opposed to changing lineal to linear in the rule. Comments from Kyl Nix, S&M Nix It is with my opinion that I believe that the new version of the rule that incorporates the use of holding tanks on a more permanent basis for residential purposes is intended to incorporate SEA 414 into the current rule. Not all recent legislation is being incorporated into the new rule. HEA 1352 states that any on-site sewage system used anywhere in the state of Indiana has the ability to be applied anywhere else in the state as long as a Soil Scientist, an installer, and an on-site sewage system designer have been to the site and agree it should be used, then a permit must be issued for the proposed system by the local health department. That is not being incorporated into the new rule, but the use of holding tanks is from SEA 414.By using the current wording in the proposed rule, allowing the use of holding tanks on a permanent basis, will be in direct conflict with SEA 414 because at the time of it's passage, holding tanks were only allowed to be used for temporary purposes residentially. SEA 414 also allowed for discharging of treated effluent topically, and to the waters of Indiana when “all other means to abide by rule 410 had been exhausted”. It is in my view that with the addition of permanent holding tanks into the proposed Indiana rule 410, the way SEA 414 is written, discharging would never be allowed because you could use holding tanks. Upon discussing this with the authors of the bill, they believe this is in conflict with the intent of the bill and the law that was approved. IDOH Response SEA 414 (2023) provided for on-site residential sewage discharging disposal systems in any county in Indiana that creates an on-site waste management district under IC 36-11 for use as a last resort when an existing residentially developed site could not support an on-site sewage system in accordance with to Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3. While this legislation allowed for the TRP and/or IDOH to develop guidance or rules pertaining to on-site residential sewage discharging disposal systems, that has not been done at this point. Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 regulates residential on-site sewage systems, as defined in section 32 of that rule. On-site residential sewage discharging disposal systems do not meet that definition and are thereby not regulated by this rule. Section 5 of SEA 414 requires local health departments to issue construction permits for holding tanks if the property owner complies with the provisions of this statute. The statute cannot be reiterated in the rule, but it is referenced in the rule. The statute is what allows holding tanks for any residence; the rule simply incorporates the use of a holding tank as a residential on-site sewage system as it is included in the definition of residential on-site sewage system in the rule. The use of holding tanks is not limited to those jurisdictions that form an on-site waste management district and fall under the NPDES permit. While these two types of systems were introduced in the same legislation, onsite residential sewage discharging disposal systems were included in Title 13, Environment, of Indiana Code, and holding tanks were included in Title 16, Health, of Indiana Code. It is not intended, nor stated, that one excludes the other, but they do fall under different state departments. IDOH is not opposed to adding a subsection to section 51 of this rule clearly indicating that this rule does not regulate on-site residential sewage discharging disposal systems, In addition, IC 13-18-12-9 states that an on-site residential sewage discharging disposal system may be used if the local health department certifies that “(C) an acceptable septic tank soil absorption system cannot be located on the property.” Therefore, a sewage holding tank would not have to be considered for a site that otherwise qualifies for an onsite residential sewage discharging disposal system. Additional Comments from Kyle Nix Please find attached additional concerns. I have reviewed with some of my peers. I have some grave concerns about terminologies and descriptions in the proposed role and the lack of clarity that it presents. I have spoken with my local health departments who have also provided concerns over the terminologies referencing when the use of repair or replacement systems may be removed from their ability to use best judgment on cumbersome sides that don't meet the rule. It also could potentially put undo financial burden on the property owners. If in fact, operating permits are required on sites that use best judgment. IDOH Response Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 only requires operating permits for use of holding tanks, as allowed for in IC 16-41-25-9. Holding tanks are an option any homeowner may choose, but it is not required to have a holding tank, unless the holding tank is required by the local health department to abate a failure creating a health hazard, even if just temporarily. Holding tanks require very frequent servicing compared to a septic tank and soil absorption field system, and, therefore, the operating permit is intended to ensure proper maintenance of holding tanks and to prevent discharge of untreated sewage and creation of a health hazard. For use of best judgment, the rule allows the local health department to require operating permits, but does not require them. The use of best judgment for replacement systems that cannot meet the provisions of the rule is not proposed to change from the current rule, except for allowing maximum trench depths of 48” only on sites where best judgment is used and requiring all best judgment decisions to be indicated on the construction permit. A local health department will have the same options for using best judgment with these rule revisions that they currently have. Continuation of Comments from Kyle Nix There are additional concerns with the rule, not addressing the use of pumps on perimeter drains for repairs/replacement systems. This is something that should be incorporated into the rule and is being overlooked. IDOH Response Pump assisted subsurface drainage has not been permissible in the State of Indiana since on-site sewage systems were first regulated in 1977. However, it is frequently permitted by local health departments as a best judgment call when failing systems are replaced. Pump assisted drainage does impose a financial burden on the homeowner because there is cost with the initial installation (basin, pump, electrical wiring, alarm system), but there is added cost of replacing the pump when it fails, making necessary repairs to the electric, alarm, and/or basin over time, and electrical costs. Adding this to the rule will be a major undertaking and, if considered by the TRP, would be addressed in a subsequent rule revision. The following was in an attachment sent with Mr. Nix's email. Residential Rule Questions/Comments IDOH Response Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 regulates residential on-site sewage systems which are defined as a septic tank and soil absorption field, a sanitary vault privy, or a sewage holding tank. Onsite residential sewage discharging disposal systems are not regulated under this rule and require a general NPDES as issued by IDEM. Therefore, local health departments do not have the authority to approve an onsite residential sewage discharging disposal systems, even as best judgment, under this rule. The provision of best judgment as used in this rule cannot be used to permit an onsite residential sewage discharging disposal system. Section 62.1 is proposed for inclusion in this rule to supplement and clarify the requirements of IC 16-41-25-9 which gives local health departments the authority to issue construction permits for holding tanks and the ability to issue operating permits for holding tanks as well as to revoke or suspend and renew operating permits. Holding tanks, as described in this statute and in the proposed rule, do not discharge and do not require an NPDES permit. The statute referenced does require a local health department to report holding tanks to the department of environmental management if IDEM requires that by rule. Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 does not impact that requirement. Sec 50.5 Watertight defined------------'Pipe penetrations must result in a connection that does not allow liquid to flow around the pipe penetration' IDOH has publically stated that this is not possible with current products. IDOH Response The definition of watertight in the proposed rule is intended to mean that the pipe penetration ports in all tanks must be watertight so that water does not flow into or out of the structure around the pipe penetrations in the tank. The portion of this definition dealing with distribution boxes does not indicate that the pipe penetration ports in a distribution box have to be watertight. Section 66(d) indicates that the material from which the distribution box is made must be watertight. IDOH is not opposed to removing the following from the definition of watertight: For new or existing distribution boxes, a visual examination should be completed. Sec 52(b) General sewage disposal……..residential outbuilding, if applicable----needs wording change IDOH Response Regarding section 52(b), IDOH is unclear about the concern. This section states that if a system fails, the local health department may require the residence and the residential outbuilding, if applicable, to connect to sewer. Not all residences have a residential outbuilding with plumbing, and, therefore, this would not apply to those outbuildings. Regarding the last line of the comment, this appears to pertain to Section 52(i). The IDOH feels that this wording is correct in the way this subsection has been rewritten by LSA. However, IDOH has no objection to changing this sentence as follows. Sec 52.1 Professional standards ..or (C) providing proof of registration in another county and a certificate from IOWPA. I think we questioned whether or not is should say or instead of and I thought the legislators wanted either one not both. IDOH Response IC 16-41-25-12 does include an “and,” not an “or” in this section of the statute. Regarding section 52.1(b)(2)(C), the proposed rule is written with the verbiage from the statute as in the highlighted section below. This section of the rule also states that it must be in accordance with this statute. IC 16-41-25-12 Provision of onsite sewage system service Sec 53 Construction Permits IDOH Response Regarding section 53(l), inspection procedures would not have to be included in a local ordinance. Pursuant to IC 16-41-25-7, local health departments, counties, cities, and towns may not adopt requirements, restrictions, or conditions concerning residential on-site sewage systems that are more stringent than the state rule. All previous ordinances that varied from the state rule are void and unenforceable; this would seem to include policies or procedures published outside of a local ordinance. If a local health department would want additional requirements in a local ordinance for system inspections, that ordinance would have to be approved by the TRP prior to it being enforceable in the jurisdiction. This section of the proposed rule discusses covering of subsurface portions of a system which could include tanks, piping, subsurface drainage, trenches, or even the site preparation for an elevated system. The intent would be to leave an elevated system uncovered until inspection is completed. While this specific section of the current rule was not proposed for change, IDOH is not opposed to clarifying the requirement for elevated systems by adding the bolded text below to 53(l)(2). Sec 54 Operating Permits IDOH Response Regarding section 54, Operating permits, local health departments may require written operating permits for any system which is approved under best judgment and/or for any sanitary vault privies. Local health departments are required to issue operating permits for holding tanks. IC 16-19-3-27, which is referenced in this section of the rule, requires the state department to study the use of certain technologies as specified in subdivision (a)(1) of that statute. Subdivision (b)(1) of that statute requires the executive board to adopt reasonable rules to promulgate plans and specifications developed under subsection (a) and allow for issuance of operating permits for those systems installed in compliance with subdivision (b)(1) which refers back to subsection (a). This statute required IDOH to create a method for local health departments to issue operating permits for recirculation media filters, aeration treatment units, drip irrigation, graveless trenches, and new technologies. The three system types (best judgment, holding tanks, and sanitary vault privies) listed in this section of the rule are not discussed in this section of the statute but also require regular operation and maintenance to ensure system longevity without failure. Additionally, proposed section 62.1(j) of this rule requires operating permits to be issued for holding tanks in accordance with IC 16-41-25-9. Therefore, for additional clarity and accuracy, IDOH recommends changing section 54(a) to read as follows. Highlighting and stricken words vary from the current draft of the rule. Sec 54.1 Requirements for Inspection IDOH Response IDOH believes that this comment pertains to section 54.1(e). In the beginning of this section, under (a), it states that this section only applies to those evaluation inspections required for connection or reconnection, best judgment, and operating permit renewal; it also pertains to any other system evaluation inspection that will be submitted to the local health department for inclusion in the permit file. Inspection reports for anything other than connection or reconnection, best judgment, and operating permit renewal are not required to be submitted to the local health department. However, frequently citizens will bring an inspection report to the local health department for interpretation and/or guidance purposes. The reports may be put on file in the local health department, in which case the reports need to be as detailed and thorough as the requirements of this section. Sec 54.1 Requirements for Inspection (cont) IDOH Response The purpose of an on-site sewage system inspection is to document each system component, their locations, and their functionality. Part of that documentation is to provide sound evidence that either the system is functioning without failure or malfunction or the system is failing and/or malfunctioning. This rule provides very clear definitions of failure and malfunction, and those definitions need to be carefully considered and used in appropriate context when determining system failure or malfunction. If the system is described accurately and thoroughly as it is at the time of inspection, the evidence provided should support the inspector's determinations. It is understood that a system failure may be reversed or a malfunction corrected. If that is the case, a second inspection may be conducted after the system is repaired or replaced which documents that the system is no longer failing or malfunctioning. The process used to correct the failure or malfunction should be documented within the new inspection report. An honest, thorough, and accurate inspection which only uses the terms failure and malfunction as defined by the rule should not incur liability upon the inspector. Sec 56 On-site evaluation IDOH Response Section 56(h) requires all soil reports that will be used for obtaining a construction permit for a residential on-site sewage system to be submitted to the local health department directly by the registered professional soil scientist. This does not mean that the owner has to have the soil report submitted to the local health department if he/she decides they will not be obtaining a construction permit; or they can have the soil scientist submit it at a later date when the decision has been made. With the report coming directly from the soil scientist, it ensures that there have been no changes to the report other than by the soil scientist. Reports submitted prior to the effective date of this rule would not be affected by this change. Sec 59 Drainage IDOH Response Regarding section 59(h), IDOH agrees that this is a good change. Regarding section 59(n), the change noted in the comment was made by LSA after approval of the draft by the TRP. IDOH agrees that the second “shall” in this subsection needs to be retained as is. Sec 60 Septic Tanks: General IDOH Response Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 regulates only residential on-site sewage systems; it does not regulate onsite residential sewage discharging disposal systems which are regulated under IC 13-18-12-9. This rule reference describes a septic tank which is part of a residential on-site sewage system which cannot discharge. Sec 62.1 Sewage holding tanks IDOH Response Regarding section 62.1(j), all holding tanks are required to have operating permits from the local health department. The holding tanks require much more frequent service than other types of on-site sewage systems, and, therefore, operating permits are a necessity for oversight of these types of systems. Local health departments will be required to issue operating permits for all holding tank installations. Sec 64 Outlet Filter IDOH Response Regarding section 64(c)(4), the change noted in the comment was made by LSA after approval of the draft by the TRP. IDOH agrees that this needs to remain as “two or more” tanks. Sec 65 Distribution Box IDOH Response Regarding section 66(d), IDOH understands the concerns expressed but feels that the benefits of having distribution box risers to the surface surpass the potential issues expressed. Many local ordinances previously required distribution box risers to grade on all distribution boxes, and there have been no known issues with these risers to grade. In fact, when inspection or troubleshooting is needed, risers to grade on distribution boxes makes the boxes much easier to locate and remove for inspection or troubleshooting. Risers to final grade have been required on septic and dosing tanks since 1990, and the distribution box riser would be very similar to a tank riser to grade which all homeowners with an on-site sewage system will have at least one of on their septic tank. IDOH is agreeable to modify this section to require risers to grade only on distribution boxes that utilize more than one (1) outlet to distribute effluent to the soil absorption field(s). This will eliminate most residential sand lined systems from having a distribution box riser installed as most only have one port that discharges effluent to the soil absorption field. Sec 74 Subsurface trench…………. IDOH Response IDOH believes this comment pertains to section 74(b). The requirement for protection of the soil absorption field falls to the property owner. When an installer becomes an agent of the owner, the installer may take on that responsibility pending what is in the contract; however, once the installer is no longer the agent of the owner, that responsibility once again is that of the property owner. Language similar to what is proposed in section 74(b) has been included in this rule since 1990 for elevated sand mounds and continues to be included currently. Similar language has been included in this rule for subsurface trenches for preventing compaction in the area of the soil absorption field before, during, and after construction since 2011. Section 74(d) currently requires this. Sec 90 Abandonment of system This must be changed back to the 2024 version of the Rule IDOH Response Regarding subsection 90(b)(4), the proposed rule includes the same three options as the current rule for tank abandonment. This section offers removal of a tank with disposition in a landfill as one option with two other options also offered as crushing the tank and backfilling or filling the tank with flowable fill. IDOH has no objection to changing the order of the three options listed to list removal and disposal at a licensed landfill as the third option rather than the first option. Comments from Katey Myers, St. Joseph County Department of Health The following list contains the comments created by the St. Joseph County Department of Health (SJCDoH) regarding the proposed changes to Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3: 410 IAC 6-8.3-18.1 "High Strength Waste" defined: SJCDoH supports this added definition but foresees potential confusion regarding how this definition will be used practically. Are local health departments (LHDs) expected to measure this? How is a homeowner or contractor supposed to know and measure this easily, and what are their obligations to report that information to the LHD? IDOH Response When a system fails and best judgment must be used by the local health department to allow a permit for a replacement system, there is a requirement for troubleshooting. Troubleshooting must also include a probable reason for failure of the system. Sampling contents of the septic tank for high strength waste is one technique often employed to try to determine the probable reason for failure. There are standard methods for laboratory testing for high strength waste. 410 IAC 6-8.3-32.1 "Residential on-site sewage system expansion" defined: SJCDoH foresees the potential for gray areas regarding this definition. Under what conditions should LHDs allow an expansion? For example, expanding a saturated system from 1970 is likely not the best option for that property. Additionally, the "expansion" definition includes situations where the design daily flow (DDF) is being increased; however, that same condition is included for the definition of "Construction, New." Under which definition should DDF increases be placed? IDOH Response Expansion of an on-site sewage system is typically only attempted when there is a viable, documented system that, for some reason, needs increased capacity. A full system inspection and a determination of the viability of the system for expansion must be considered; the system must be confirmed to have, at a minimum, a septic tank and a soil absorption field. A system may be receiving a flow that is higher than the DDF set when the system was installed, such as a house built as a 3 bedroom home that was expanded to 4 bedrooms without proper permits to do that. Often an expansion is attempted to try to alleviate system failure. System expansion to overcome failure would also require a good idea of why the system is in failure. IDOH agrees that this definition creates some confusion between system expansion and new construction. IDOH has no objection to modifying this section as indicated below in bold font. 410 IAC 6-8.3-33 "Residential on-site sewage system failure" defined: This definition now includes "Sewage or effluent discharged to a drywell or cesspool." SJCDoH strongly supports this change to the definition. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. 410 IAC 6-8.3-33.1 "Residential on-site sewage system malfunction" or "malfunction" defined: SJCDoH supports this definition, but requests additional clarity for LHD responsibility when malfunctions are discovered. Should a sort of "cautionary letter" that does not require any action to be taken be sent, or an Order of Abatement, or nothing at all? Additionally, SJCDoH recommends expanding this definition to include system components that no longer meet material requirements (for example: tanks made of metal or ceramic, or piping made of clay or cast iron). IDOH Response Section 55(b) of this rule allows the local health officer to require the repair, replacement, or service of a component that is defective, malfunctioning, or in need of service; this is not new to the rule. The repair, replacement, or service must be completed within a time limit set by the health officer. This would require a local health department order to the property owner, as would any other order for compliance. Components made of materials no longer approved cannot be required to be replaced under the provision of section 55(b). If there is an older component that continues to function without defect, malfunction, or failure, there is no provision for a local health department to require repair, replacement or servicing. It is likely that components that old would be leaking, structurally compromised, or contributing to a system failure, in which case, they could be required to be repaired, replaced, or serviced in accordance with 55(b). 410 IAC 6-8.3-35.1 "Responsible charge of installers" defined: SJCDoH supports the addition of this definition. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53(d), regarding written site plans: SJCDoH supports this addition of requirements for written site plans. IDOH Response Although the requirement for written plans has been included in the rule since 2011, it has been greatly expanded and detailed. IDOH agrees with this comment. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53(j), regarding high strength waste: see the above comments for Section 18.1. IDOH Response When a system fails and best judgment must be used by the local health department to allow a permit for a replacement system, there is a requirement for troubleshooting. Troubleshooting must also include a probable reason for failure of the system. Sampling contents for high strength waste is one technique often employed to try to determine the probable reason for failure. There are standard methods for laboratory testing for high strength waste. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(c)(1), regarding systems not meeting minimum requirements of the rule: SJCDoH strongly supports the addition of this clause. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates and agrees with this comment. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(c)(2), regarding rules in that were in place during installation: SJCDoH foresees future confusion arising from this addition. Are LHDs or septic inspectors expected to know all former versions of this rule? IDOH Response A key point for local health department staff, installers, and inspectors is having access to what was required/allowed in previous rules dating back to 1977. All previous rules are available on the IDOH website, and IDOH has a summary document available incorporating major rule changes. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(d), regarding components that must be inspected: SJCDoH strongly supports the addition of this entire section. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates and agrees with this comment. 410 IAC 6-8.3-56(h), regarding soil scientist submittals: SJCDoH foresees problems with soil scientists submitting their reports directly. Specifically, that many soil scientists will not submit their reports, leading to delays and confusion for homeowners, as well as additional charges to homeowners by the soil scientists for "processing fees." IDOH Response Section 56(h) requires the soil scientist to submit all soil reports that will be used for obtaining a construction permit for a residential on-site sewage system to the local health department directly. This does not mean that the owner has to have the soil report submitted to the local health department if he/she decides they will not be obtaining a construction permit; or they can have the soil scientist submit it at a later date when the decision has been made. With the report coming directly from the soil scientist, it ensures that there have been no changes to the report other than by the soil scientist. IDOH is not currently aware of any registered professional soil scientists that will not submit their report to the local health department at the request of the client or who would charge a processing fee to do so. Reports submitted prior to the effective date of this rule would not be affected by this change. Comments from Rick Wood, Dba Earthworks Land Services I am requesting consideration in the revised rule to include permitted installation of a perimeter drain pump when a gravity drain outlet is not available. Point to acknowledge is the permitted use of pumps to pump effluent from a tank to the absorption field while recognizing maintenance required for proper system operation. Likewise, a pump utilized for perimeter drain outletting, maintenance would be required for continuous system operation as well... Bullet points to consider: Final comment: ... many older systems that had no past perimeter drain requirements that saturated soils could be solved with a perimeter drain, as well as new home construction to allow septic permitting when a gravity outlet is nonexistent and reduce installation cost to remediate system design to counter a nonexistent perimeter drain. IDOH Response Pump assisted subsurface drainage has not been permissible in the State of Indiana since on-site sewage systems were first regulated in 1977. However, they are frequently permitted by local health departments as a best judgment call. Pump assisted drainage does impose a financial burden on the homeowner because there is cost with the initial installation (basin, pump, electrical wiring, alarm system), but there is added cost of replacing the pump when it fails, making necessary repairs to the electric, alarm, and/or basin over time, and electrical cost. Adding this to the rule will be a major undertaking and, if considered by the TRP, would be addressed in a subsequent rule revision. Comments from Mark S. McClain, RPSS The following issues are necessary to bring the rule into conformance with statutory updates and other matters are included as well. Please consider the following. Incorporation of the necessary and applicable components of HEA No. 1245 (2022), SEA No. 414 (2023), HEA No. 1402 (2023), House Bill No. 1436 (2023), HB No. 1352 (2024), and HEA No. 1052 as per IC 16-19-3-34(a) must occur as additions to and as integral parts of the new draft rule. Also, specifically refer to page 7 of HEA No. 1052 as per this requirement. Many applicable components of these laws are not included. It is essential to include all aspects of the law whether in Indiana Code or in rules (IAC) no matter what their origin is or whether or not we selectively agree with the laws. Many aspects of these laws from these bills that are now in Indiana Code have not been included in the new draft rule. It has been argued that these are “stand alone” laws in the Indiana Codes and therefore should not be included or repeated in the new draft rule. This is inconsistent. It is my argument here that transparency, consistency, fluidity, and useability are required and essential. There are many redundancies in the existing Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 because many of the requirements that are in this rule are also in Indiana Codes; therefore, using the above argument, these redundancies should not be repeated in the new draft rule and consequently they should be removed. To be consistent, the redundancies must be removed from the existing Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3, or for clarification and useability, other important matters that are included in the above-referenced bills that are now Indiana Code must be included in the new draft rule as well. The new draft rule must be transparent, consistent, and useable. IDOH Response IDOH has worked extensively with the TRP to update and revise Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 to “conform to legislation enacted in 2023 and 2024” as required in IC 16-19-3-34(a) (Section 4 of HEA 1052 on page 7). This statute did not specify that the rule had to conform to legislation from 2022 or 2025; however, in our extensive revisions of this rule, we do believe that this rule now conforms to legislation passed in 2022 and 2025 as well. HB 1436 (2023) was never enacted, so it is unnecessary for this rule to conform with that legislation. It is our understanding that conforming to the legislation does not require exact replication of the statute in the rule. IC 4-22-2-19.5, Standards for rules, subsection (a)(3) and (4) require that rules comply with (3) “Avoid duplicating standards found in state or federal laws;” and (4) “Be written for ease of comprehension,” both of which have been fundamentally applied to this rule revision to the extent possible in the short timeline for this rule revision. Additional changes may need to be addressed in future revisions. The consistent and correct use of “Oxford commas” (e.g., “red, white, and blue” as opposed to “red, white and blue”) should be used and checked throughout the new draft rule. The incorrect use has the potential for many legal problems and challenges. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. Inasmuch as possible, during this short timeline given for revision of this rule, all of these instances in the portions of the current rule proposed for revision and proposed new sections of this rule have incorporated use of the Oxford comma where applicable. IDOH will again review the entirety of the rule to see if any were inadvertently missed. Sections of the rule not proposed for revision at this time will be thoroughly reviewed at the next revision. The uses of “shall” and “must” are inconsistent in the draft rule. Both terms are used. What is legally appropriate? It must be consistent. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. It appears that LSA has made this change to convert most instances of “shall” to “must” where applicable. Unfortunately, there are some instances where this has caused confusion, and additional changes will be requested in those areas for clarity. Clarification is needed on the uses and definitions of sewage and wastewater. Both terms are used. The terms are synonyms and should be defined as such to be clear and consistent. Definitions of both should be included in the rule. IDOH Response “Wastewater” appears 6 times in the proposed rule revision (once in the name of Indiana Onsite Wastewater Professionals Association), 4 times in the names of ANSI/NSF standards, and once as proposed use of “non-wastewater.” “Sewage” is used 269 times in the proposed revision and is defined in a section of the rule not proposed for change. IDOH proposes to change the one instance of “non-wastewater” to “non-sewage” for consistency. The many terms used for “septic systems” needs to be consistent and defined using all of the terms as they are used in the rule and in other statutes. The different terms that are used in the rule and other statutes are: septic tank soil absorption system; OSS occurring two ways with and without a hyphen as onsite sewage system and on-site sewage system; onsite sewage disposal system; septic system; drainfield; septic system; and “system.” It would be best to include all of these terms used in various places in the rule and other statutes as a single definition in the new rule including all uses and synonyms for consistency and understandability. IDOH Response During the revision of this rule from 6-8.1 to 6-8.2 in 2010, IDOH was instructed to use “on-site” rather than “onsite” by the Office of Legal Affairs. IDOH has remained consistent to that term to this day. IDOH staff consistently use the term “on-site sewage system,” and this, of the terms listed in the comment, is the primary term used in the rule currently, with an occasional “system” being used. It would be confusing, time-consuming, and not in the guise of making this rule easily comprehendible to include all of these other terms. It is understood that statutes passed in prior years use different terminologies, and most of those older statutes define the terms used. Recent legislation did change some of these to “onsite sewage system” (without the hyphen). IDOH may consider changing use of the term “system” to “on-site sewage system” in a future revision. Several terms, roles, entities, and people are used in various forms in the rule and in other statutes. Clarification and consistency are needed on their authoritative roles as it applies to and is used in the rule and other Indiana statutes and codes. All of the following are given authority in the rule for different matters: IDOH Response IDOH agrees that the professionals all fill a specific role in the on-site sewage system industry in Indiana. In compliance with I.C. 4-22-2-19.5(a)(3), it is unnecessary to duplicate the statutes in this rule and is strongly discouraged to the extent possible. A definition of fill, fill soil, and fill material needs to be added to the rule. IDOH Response A definition of “fill” is currently included in the rule (section 16) but is not proposed for revision at this time. IDOH is not opposed to including the other terms mentioned in that existing definition in future rule revisions if applicable. In HEA No. 1245 (2022), the verbiage pertaining to “fill soil,” the role of the health department in issuing a required permit, and previously platted lots needs to be incorporated in the rule as per IC 16-41-25-1 and specifically in per IC 16-41-25-1(b). IDOH Response IC 16-19-3-34(a) does not require this rule revision to conform to legislation enacted in any year other than 2023 and 2024. IC 16-41-25-1(b) requires the state department rule to not prohibit installation in fill soil if the three stipulations listed therein are met. The proposed rule does not prohibit installation of an on-site sewage system in fill soil where site conditions meet the requirements listed. IDOH is also agreeable to add a footnote referencing this statute in the two soil loading rate charts existing in the rule. It is somewhat comical and ironic to me that a legal definition of “soil” is not in the rule and never has been even though I have mentioned in a various times. A definition of soil needs to be added to the rule. The proposed definition that I wrote is as follows: IDOH Response IDOH is agreeable to include the definition of soil in the revised rule. Soil is defined by IC 25-31.5-1-9. Clarification and consistent use are needed for the uses of “raisers” and “risers” in the rule and in HEA No. 1245 (2022). Both are assumed to be synonymous terms. Therefore, this needs to be addressed in the rule. IDOH Response The term “riser” is the industry standard term for what provides access from the ground surface to the access port of a septic or dosing tank. The only source of the term “raiser” related to on-site sewage systems comes from IC 16-41-25-3 which was enacted in 1996. The use of this term in legislation may have been simply a typographical error or a misunderstanding of the terminology. This rule only uses “riser” for this component of the on-site sewage system. The requirement for a soil compaction remediation plan certified by a Registered Professional Soil Scientists (RPSS) under IC 25-31.5-1-1 as referenced under IC 16-41-25-6 as it pertains to soil compaction must be included in the rule. IDOH Response The reference to IC 25-31.5-1-1 is unclear as this particular section only states those individuals to which the article does not apply. IDOH agrees to reference IC 16-41-25-6 in sections 70(c)(5) and 72(c)(5), both of which discuss soil compaction at the site of an on-site sewage system. The legal procedures for when health department personnel are permitted to enter a property with “given notice” for the purpose of the inspection and evaluation of a septic system as per IC 16-41-25-10(a) must be included in the rule. It is not included in the new draft rule. IDOH Response Section 51(c) of the current rule states, “In accordance with IC 16-41-25-10 and IC 16-41-25-11, the department or its agent, or the health officer or the health officer's agent, shall be permitted to enter upon all properties at the proper time for the following purposes necessary to achieve compliance with this rule: (1) Inspection. (2) Observation. (3) Measurement. (4) Sampling. (5) Testing. (Emphasis added.) This verbiage was incorporated into the revised and republished rule on March 28, 2024. If the use of “drainage calculations” is to be retained in the rule, specific definitions, procedures, and references must be included. They are not. The references to the use of “drainage calculations” is much too ambiguous and very unclear as to what is meant and how it can be legally and technically applied to matters in the rule. If it is to remain this ambiguous in the rule and left to the discretion of soil scientists and engineers, remove it from the rule until it has a very specific, peer-reviewed, and accepted methodology. I have reached out to many people, including the “author” (i.e., Jeff Helay) of this process, and no one, including Jeff, knows what the use of “drainage calculations” means anymore, or even how to perform the calculations. IDOH Response Previously, IDOH employed two registered professional soil scientists who were resources and trainers for the Environmental Public Health Division. Due to attrition and a hiring moratorium, IDOH has not had positions for soil scientists in the division for a number of years. These two soil scientists, with input from Mr. Jeff Healy, developed this modeling for subsurface drainage that allows an alternative method of determining subsurface drainage depth. IDOH retains a spreadsheet developed by the IDOH soil scientists, believed to have been reviewed and/or had input from Mr. Healy, for use by professionals in the Indiana industry. The use of “onsite residential sewage discharging disposal systems” or “permitted discharge” as per SEA No. 414 (2023) HB No. 1352 (2024) IDOH Response IC 13-18-12-9 states that an onsite residential sewage discharging disposal system may be used if the local health department certifies that “(C) an acceptable septic tank soil absorption system cannot be located on the property.” Therefore, a sewage holding tank would not have to be considered for a site that otherwise qualifies for an onsite residential sewage discharging disposal system. IDOH agrees with part (a) of this comment. Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 regulates residential on-site sewage systems which are defined as a septic tank and soil absorption field, a sanitary vault privy, or a sewage holding tank. Onsite residential sewage discharging disposal systems are regulated under IC 13-18-12-9, which is a different title of Indiana Code. IDOH concurs that, in those jurisdictions which meet the requirement for issuance of permits for onsite residential sewage discharging disposal systems under said statute, homeowners faced with a failing system who cannot install a septic tank and soil absorption field in compliance with this rule should be allowed to make an informed decision as to which they wish to install. Because Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3 does not regulate onsite residential sewage discharging disposal systems, this would be regulated by the local waste management district and the local health department outside the scope of this rule. In regard to part (b) of the comment, onsite residential sewage discharging disposal systems are not regulated under this rule and require a general NPDES as issued by IDEM. Therefore, local health departments do not have the authority to approve an onsite residential sewage discharging disposal system under this rule, so the provision of best judgment as used in this rule cannot be used to permit an onsite residential sewage discharging disposal system. At a minimum, the following matters must be addressed in future revisions of the rule, and should have been addressed in this review and rule-making process: IDOH Response IDOH agrees to discuss these issues listed, and any others suggested, with the TRP during future rule revisions. Comments from Kenneth Thompson II, Senior Project Engineer, Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC On behalf of Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC and Orenco Systems Inc, I am writing to express our appreciation for the opportunity to participate in the rule revision process for Title 410. We provide the following comments: General Comment: Septic tank access safety devices - use following predefined language taken from CSA B66 and also proposed to IAPMO for modification to Z1000. Secondary Safety Device Definition: A device installed below a riser cover of a tank that is commercially manufactured for the purpose of preventing accidental entry into the tank. Requirements: Tanks with access openings with a diameter greater than 200 mm (8 in) that extend to grade, have a cover that can be removed, and in which there is a risk of accidental entry, shall have a secondary safety device that can withstand a 91 kg (200 lb) dead load. IDOH Response IC 16-41-25-3, enacted in 1996 by the Indiana legislature, specifically states, “Below a residential onsite sewage system's lid or top described in subsection (b), the tank of the residential onsite sewage system must have a cap or plug.” This is where the current reference in section 63(d)(6) originates, and the term “plug” is also consistent with this statute. IDOH agrees to change the terminology in section 54.1(d)(1)(G) and (d)(2)(D) to secondary safety device, if this is deemed in compliance with the referenced statute. A definition of secondary safety device can also be included to better describe the requirements of the component. 401 IAC 6-8.3-54.1 Comment: verify this section should be 410, not 401 IDOH Response Correct. This is inadvertently listed as 401 rather than 410. 410 IAC 6-8.3-20.2 Comment : Sec 20.2.A - Regarding “limiting layer” would any type of redoximorphic feature (indicating water) be considered a soil horizon that restricts the suitability of a site? Suggestion: Recommend including redoximorphic features (ie indicating water) in definition of “limiting layer.” IDOH Response In Indiana, redoximorphic features (indicative of a seasonal high-water table in the soil profile) are not considered a limiting layer as long as subsurface drainage can amend the depth of the seasonal high-water table to 24” below the absorptive surface of subsurface system or 20” below the absorptive surface of an elevated system. Section 59 of the rule provides requirements for amending a seasonal high-water table and the requirements for vertical separation distances to the seasonal high-water table. 410 IAC 6-8.3-43 Comment: Sec. 43. - Section needs to be inclusive of treatment trains beyond septic tanks Suggestion: "Soil absorption system" or "soil absorption field" means pipes or chambers laid in a system of subsurface trenches, or pipes laid in elevated beds, into which the effluent from the septic tank or advanced treatment systems is discharged into the soil for treatment and dispersal. The soil absorption system also includes the distribution box and effluent sewers after the distribution box, or the pressure manifold. IDOH Response Currently, this rule does not address “advanced treatment systems,” even though aeration units for aerobic digestion is referenced one time. This would be a major change to the rule, and may be considered in future revisions. 410 IAC 6-8.3-43.1 Comment: Sec. 43.1 - how does an auger pull a sample of the soil without mixing horizons? Mixed horizons can provide inaccurate soil information Suggestion: Recommend removing soil auger from definition. Soil augers can be useful with the understanding that augurs can result in a mixing of the soil. Can alter description of characterization of the soil, presence of water, and limiting layer IDOH Response This rule allows registered professional soil scientists to use their discretion as to what equipment is used to evaluate the soil. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53 Comment: Sec.53.d.1 - clarify this language to account for secondary homes Suggestion: change to include both physical and mailing address Similarly in 401 IAC 6-8.3-55, sec55.d one would require a proper mailing address to serve the order properly. IDOH Response IDOH agrees to this change. Comment: sec.53.g - consider incomplete applications and the time for resubmittal Suggestion: change to read after receiving a completed application. Also consider restarting the 30 day timeline should more information be needed from the applicant. IDOH Response IDOH agrees to add “complete” prior to “application.” This is the way it is currently interpreted with the 30-day timeline restarting upon submittal of a revised application, including construction plans that may have needed revision. 401 IAC 6-8.3-54.1 Comment: sec.54.1.D.3.E - consider adding equal distribution wording Suggestion: modify sec54.1.D.3.E to read “invert of the outlets all at the same level to ensure equal distribution; and” IDOH Response IDOH agrees to make this change. Comment: Sec54.1.D.4.C and D - Please clarify the reasons for (C) and (D) as part of an inspection for installed systems. Digging to lateral line can cause preferential flows to the ground surface. Additionally, this would be a liability for the inspector. IDOH Response Subsection C is included because this rule requires a minimum of 12” of soil cover over the soil absorption field and crowning over the soil absorption field to promote surface water runoff. It is necessary to determine compliance with this, or previous, rules. Subsection D is included to provide an approximation of the vertical separation distance to an underlying limiting condition as described in the soil evaluation report. This is done by probing, not digging into the soil absorption field. IDOH is agreeable to including “with the use of a tile probe” to subsection D. 410 IAC 6-8.3-56 Comment: Sec56.c - disturbing 3 areas with pits changes the direction of effluent when effluent enters those areas. Suggestion: consider the pits be within 20 feet of the proposed field on at least 2 sides to reduce this risk. IDOH Response This rule allows the soil scientists' discretion as to what tools are used to describe soils; soil pits are one acceptable method of evaluation. Soils pits are accepted, but not required, by this rule. The Indiana registered professional soil scientists who do these evaluations are keenly aware of the issues of soil disturbance and water movement through soil. IDOH and local health departments rely on the registered professional soil scientist to evaluate the site in the manner they see necessary. 410 IAC 6-8.3-60 Comment: sec 60.h.4 - Advanced treatment systems are typically designed and tested with a pretreatment/primary compartment or tank. Applying conventional septic tank rules to advanced treatment units has the potential to disrupt the biological processes and provide effluent quality that does not meet NSF/ANSI 40 Class 1 requirements. Potential risk for litigation if the consumer water quality is not performing as it was tested or advertised. IDOH Response This text has been included in the rule for a number of years. Advanced treatment units that use a smaller pretreatment tank than what is required for septic tanks in this rule are reviewed and approved under different standards by IDOH, unless delegation has been given to the local health department for these reviews. Section 60(h)(4) provides a means where an aeration unit for aerobic digestion can be used in a conventional system with just local health department approval. Consideration of this comment may be made in future revisions. 410 IAC 6-8.3-62 General comment: is this intended to be a “Dosing Tanks construction details” similar to section 6-8.3-61 for septic tanks? Also applies to section 6-8.3-62.1 for Sewage holding tanks, which also provides “nonconstruction details.” Comment: sec. 62 - for consistency, all sections mentioning tanks regardless of their material or function should reference the relevant material standards i.e., IAPMO Z1000 or Z1001. IDOH Response Section 62 includes both construction requirements for dosing tanks as well as other requirements pertinent to dosing tanks. Similarly, section 62.1 includes both construction requirements for holding tanks as well as other requirements pertinent to holding tanks. Claude Goguen, P.E., National Pre-cast Concrete Association, Director of Technical Education, and former TRP member representing IOWPA, agreed with the language proposed in this revision. This verbiage was approved by the TRP. 410 IAC 6-8.3-62.1 Comment: sec 62.1 consider antibuoyancy requirements per manufacturer's instructions. Tanks are often pumped when the ground saturated, which could lead to the tank floating. IDOH Response IDOH agrees to add antibuoyancy requirements to this rule but would prefer inclusion of this text in section 63 with the requirements for septic, dosing, and holding tank installation and maintenance so that it would apply to all types of tanks. 410 IAC 6-8.3-7.1 Comment: Sec 7.1 - please provide clarity if the statement in this section applies to “new construction” only or if it is for “repairs and replacements” that cannot meet the rule for new construction. Example language used in other jurisdictions: “applications for repair and/or replacement of on-site sewage systems shall meet the requirements of this Rule to the greatest extent possible. The Department may use Best Judgement” to permit deviations from this Rule without the need for a variance or waiver on a case-by-case basis” Suggestion: Strike “for new construction.” from sec. 7.1. IDOH Response This definition states that the best judgment of the local health department can only be used for replacement soil absorption fields when installed to replace a failed on-site sewage system. Best judgment may not be used for new construction. IDOH agrees to modify this definition using part of the suggestion in the comment as follows: 410 IAC 6-8.3-7.2 Comment: Consider using EPA cesspool definition: “an underground system that collects, treats, and disposes of sanitary waste, typically consisting of an open-bottomed or perforated cylinder” IDOH Response IDOH does not consider a cesspool to treat wastewater and does not want to confuse the use of a cesspool with that of a soil absorption field. 410 IAC 6-8.3-14.1 Comment: This fits the industry definition of a cesspool. A Drywell is a similar structure that is designed to receive grey-water or rainwater only. Suggestion: Combine definitions for cesspool (6-8.3-7.2), drywell, and/or seepage pit IDOH Response The current proposed definition describes drywells as used previously in Indiana. Historically, drywells found in use in Indiana collect both grey and black water. IDOH does not regulate drywells that receive rainwater only. 410 IAC 6-8.3-18 Comment: It is good practice to avoid using the term being defined in part of the definition. Suggestion: "Health officer" means the representative of a local health department responsible for the approval, permitting, and inspection of residential on-site sewage systems. IDOH Response IDOH agrees to this change. 410 IAC 6-8.3-18.1 Comment: Waste strength outlined below does not match common standards (NSF/ANSI 40). Suggestion: Redefine parameters in 18.1.1 as outlined in NSF/ANSI 40-2023 such as BOD5 greater than 300 mg/L and TSS greater than or 350 mg/L. Suggestion: Remove (2). Create a newly defined term or place the values from (2) directly into the rule where applicable IDOH Response The definition proposed is the definition previously used by the National Sanitation Foundation, but is no longer defined by that organization. The current limit for BOD5 for influent is set at 300 mg/L as stated in the comment. IDOH does not recommend using the more liberal value for TSS of 350 mg/L. Subsection (2) is included in this definition as this is where grab samples are typically collected for analysis. 410 IAC 6-8.3-33.2 and 33.3 Comment: above sections are not defined as mutually exclusive. Suggestion: Redefine 33.2 and 33.3 for repair and replacement to ensure that both definitions are distinct by clarifying that repairing a component is not defined as a “system replacement.” IDOH Response IDOH agrees to re-evaluate the definitions provided in 32.1, 33.2, and 33.3 to provide additional clarity. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53 Comment: Sec 53.D.1.D - System designers may not know if these items are going to be included in the home. Suggestion: Reword (D) to read: The inclusion of pumps or water using appliances that affect the waste strength characteristics or volume for the dwelling or residential outbuilding in the residential plumbing. IDOH Response IDOH agrees to modify this language as provided in the comment. In Indiana, the owner or the agent of the owner (who would need to consult the owner on such matters) is responsible for completing the application form and indicating such appliances. It would seem that if the designer does not know if the listed appliances are to be used in the home, they similarly would not know about pumps and water using appliances that affect waste strength or volume. Comments from Charlie L. Ray, Jr. P.E., Duneland Group Pump assisted perimeter drains are allowed for septic systems being remediated. Our company feels they should be allowed in some cases, maybe a variance, for new construction. Example: We were unable to daylight the perimeter drain for a lot because it's flat. We proposed a pump-assisted solution, but were told the state requires gravity perimeter drains. We were also informed that pump-assisted drains are allowed for system repairs only, but not new construction. We looked into using the newly accepted Eljen system, which does not require a perimeter drain. However, the way the ordinance is written it still makes it a requirement. This situation is challenging because the soil scientist indicates a septic system is feasible, but the topography suggests otherwise. Buyers often purchase lots based on soils reports before any design work that considers topography is completed. This means a person could purchase an unbuildable lot. Since Porter County IDOH has no means to apply for a variance the lot is unbuildable. And the lawsuits begin. IDOH Response Pumped assisted subsurface drainage is only allowed under the best judgment provision of the rule. It cannot be allowed or disallowed based upon a local ordinance. All local ordinances in effect currently have been approved by the TRP and none of these include this provision. Pump assisted subsurface drainage has not been permissible in the State of Indiana since on-site sewage systems were first regulated in 1977. However, it is frequently permitted by local health departments as a best judgment call. Pump assisted drainage does impose a financial burden on the homeowner because there is cost with the initial installation (basin, pump, electrical wiring, alarm system), but there is added cost of replacing the pump when it fails, making necessary repairs to the electric, alarm, and/or basin over time, and electrical cost. Adding this to the rule will be a major undertaking and, if considered by the TRP, would be addressed in a subsequent rule revision. The product referenced in the comment requires subsurface drainage with the same requirements as any other technologies approved in Indiana. Soil scientists do not typically indicate that a site is “feasible” or “unfeasible” for a site. The soil scientist describes the features and characteristics of the soil and site. This report is used to determine the suitability of the site for an on-site sewage system by the local health department. Feasibility cannot be confirmed until a plan is designed for the system at the site showing compliance with the rule. IDOH frequently has similar discussions with property owners and the need for due diligence for determining the feasibility of putting in a system compliant with the rule. Comments from Josh Blauvelt, Director, Environmental Services, Allen County Department of Health The Allen County Department of Health's Pollution Control Program is writing to you today in support of the proposed rule changes to Rule 410 IAC 6-8.3. We feel that many of the updates to the rule provide clarity and additional standards that will help the life and longevity of on-site sewage systems in Allen County and Indiana as a whole. Specifically, we are in strong support of the addition proposed to 410 IAC 6-8.3-66 (d) to require a riser to be installed and extended to final grade when the distribution box is installed below final grade. Regular maintenance and inspection of the distribution box can identify damage to the distribution box, unequal distribution to the absorption field due to settling or shifting of the distribution box or clogs in the distribution system before these become severe problems leading to potential costly repairs. Providing access to the distribution box at final grade eliminates the need for additional cost to the property owner to have the distribution box located and excavated for maintenance and repairs. The Allen County Department of Health would like to recommend that it be specified that the riser for the distribution box be equivalent to the full size (length and width) of the distribution box, so that all influent and effluent ports are visible and accessible. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates and agrees with this comment. Also, we are in strong support of 410 IAC 6-8.3-52.1 and the professional standards for on-site sewage system installers. Allen County had required registration/certification through local ordinance for more than 30 years and believe this is a positive step in the right direction. We would also ask that consideration be given to expanding this section to include evaluators/inspectors and system designers who are not already registered or licensed through another state agency. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates this comment. IDOH commits to working with TRP on future revisions that incorporate these considerations. Below is a list of our comments that we would like to provide on sections of the proposed rule change: 410 IAC 6-8.3-12.1 “Designer” defined: Strongly support defining designer. The rule should allow for local registration / certification / testing of designers (similar to what the code states for installers). Many states have tiered registration / certification / testing of designers and installers, with designer certification as a higher tier to achieve than installer. IDOH Response IDOH does not disagree with this comment. 410 IAC 6-8.3-14.1 “Drywell” defined: Allen County recently had a proposed drywell for a church, for the explicit purpose of returning unused, but 'blessed' / 'sacred' communion wine directly to the earth. In trying to understand this better, we spoke with local religious leaders. It was explained that from a Lutheran perspective, once the wine has been consecrated for the Sacrament of the Altar, it is not regarded as an ordinary substance. For that reason, churches treat what remains with reverence. In many places, the practice is for the remaining consecrated wine to be consumed. If that is not possible or prudent, a long-standing practice has been to return it directly to the earth in a respectful manner rather than send it into the common waste stream (such as a sanitary sewer or on-site system). In looking further into this, we identified several churches that have drywells for this purpose. These 'sinks' which send the unused wine to the dry well are not sinks in the traditional sense. The basin is not large enough to wash items such as dishes. In addition, these 'sinks' do not have any running water, and there typically is a standard sink available nearby for the purpose of washing items. So, the only thing being poured down is the leftover, consecrated wine. The quantity involved is typically very small (much less than 1 gallon total after a church service). In looking into this, it was made clear that practices vary somewhat from congregation to congregation. Some churches consume all that remains. Some may reserve it. Some may use a dedicated sacrarium-type drain. So, as regulators, we don't want to assume one universal method. But, given that the core principle of reverent treatment is widely shared, we would suggest a narrow and carefully defined religious-use exception for the use of drywells for this specific purpose, rather than a broad exemption. IDOH Response IDOH has previously provided guidance to the Allen County Department of Health agreeing with the use of a drywell for this specific purpose. It is the opinion of IDOH that the blessed communion wine is not sewage as defined by the rule. 410 IAC 6-8.3-18.1 “High Strength Waste” defined: Allen County strongly supports including this definition in the residential code. It is already in the commercial code. Further, Allen County has performed extensive troubleshooting of failed on-site systems, and identified that high strength waste, as defined in the commercial code, has clearly been present and contributing to the identified failure. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates and agrees with this comment and commits to discuss this change during future revisions. 410 IAC 6-8.3-19.1 “Inspector” defined: Allen County disagrees with the use of this term for this definition. The use of Inspector for this purpose will create public confusion. The term Inspector has widely been used historically to describe a field representative of local health departments. A better term for this proposed definition is an Evaluator. This term has been used in Allen County since 2011 to distinguish between LHD field staff, and private, third party for-hire individuals. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with the sentiment of this comment. At this point in the promulgation process, it may be difficult to change, but it has been presented to the TRP previously and can be discussed again in future revisions. 410 IAC 6-8.3-33 “Residential on-site sewage system failure” defined: Under Section 33(4), the definition should also include permanent holding tanks as one of the viable onsite options listed. IDOH Response Because the definition of Residential On-site Sewage System includes sewage holding tanks, inherently the holding tank is included in this section. 410 IAC 6-8.3-33.1 “Residential on-site sewage system malfunction” defined: Allen County strongly supports this definition. This definition has been in Allen County's local ordinance since 2011. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates this comment. 410 IAC 6-8.3-33.2 “Residential on-site sewage system repair” defined: Definition should also specifically include pump replacement. In addition, the term routine maintenance may need to be defined. IDOH Response IDOH is not opposed to specifically adding effluent pump replacement to this definition. 410 IAC 6-8.3-44 “Soil horizon” defined: Allen County strongly supports this definition, but recommends that percent coarse fragments are also listed as an item, along with color, texture, structure, consistence, etc. IDOH Response IDOH is not opposed to adding this to the definition. The requirement for providing the percent of coarse fragments in each horizon is included in section 56(f)(2)(J). 410 IAC 6-8.3-52 General sewage disposal requirements: (b) Due to the potential burdensome cost for a home that is located well off the road, Allen County, by ordinance, historically only had homes connect where the sewer was available within 300' of the structure, not the property line. By making this change to the proposed code and thus making the rule slightly less inclusive for this issue, there may be a better chance of getting this section added to the code. IDOH Response This subsection states that the local health department may require connection in this situation. Also, the requirement for connection can only be made by the local health department if the connection is available within 300' of the property line and within 150% of the cost of installing a residential on-site sewage system. Including both the distance and the cost factor may make this a moot point when a home is located so far from the road as that would significantly add to the cost of sewer connection. Also, this is optional for local health departments, so discretion may be used by the local health department on a case-by-case basis. (l) The term inspector should be replaced with the term evaluator. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with the sentiment of this comment. At this point in the promulgation process, it may be difficult to change, but may be considered in future revisions. 410 IAC 6-8.3-52.1 Professional standards for on-site sewage system installers: Allen County strongly agrees with adding this section. Allen County had, by ordinance required registration / certification for more than 30 years. However, we suggest this section be expanded to include evaluators and designers. Many states have different tiers of testing / certification / competency levels to be available to be obtained for different aspects of the industry. It does not make sense to register / certify an installer to install the system, but to not require the designer to be registered / certified when designing the system. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates and agrees with this comment. IDOH believes the first step in this process is being made by requiring registration of installers. Future revisions may be made to incorporate these ideas. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53 Construction permits: IDOH Response IDOH is not opposed to this change. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates and agrees with this comment. (l): As discussed previously regarding the proposed definition of inspectors, and the inherent conflict with the traditional use of the term inspector, this existing section of code refers to the health department performing an inspection. This further speaks to the need to use a separate term such as evaluations and evaluators for third party, for-hire individuals. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with the sentiment of this comment. At this point in the promulgation process, it may be difficult to change but may be considered in future revisions. 410 IAC 6-8.3-56 Onsite evaluation: The title of this section may be more clear by changing it to 'On-site soil evaluation' to differentiate between what in this section is typically referred to as a 'soil test' in the field, and a standard evaluation which is aimed at examining the conditions of an existing system. IDOH Response IDOH is not opposed to this change. 410 IAC 6-8.3-61 Septic tanks: construction details: (g) Change proposed 12 ½% back to 12.5%. IDOH Response This change was made to the proposed rule by LSA after approval by the TRP. It is necessary to keep this change for accessibility requirements per LSA. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. This topic was initially discussed with the TRP early in the rule revision process, but was later dropped for this revision due to other statutorily-required changes and the expedited timeline required. This change will be brought up again to the TRP for future revisions. 410 IAC 6-8.3-61 Dosing tanks: IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. This may be pursued in future revisions. 410 IAC 6-8.3-62.1 Sewage holding tanks: Regarding section (l), what is supposed to happen if public sewer is not available, and the site does not have room for a properly sized soil absorption field? IDOH Response The section referenced states that the local health department may require connection to sewer or installation of a soil absorption field. These options are not required, and many sites may not have either option available. If this is the case, the local health department would have to pursue enforcement for proper operation and maintenance of the holding tank and potentially use a declaration of unfit for human habitation to resolve the failure. 410 IAC 6-8.3-64 Outlet filters: Under section (g), allowing a filter alarm to be installed, this should be amended to state that a local health department may require a filter alarm to be installed. Allen County has required, by ordinance, the use of filter alarms. Through our Allen County Onsite Wastewater Management District (which has been in place since 2005), we have observed many filters that are severely plugged up and in need of service. Filter alarms help prevent a backup from becoming so severe that sewage submerges the filter so significantly to the point where it cannot be seen or reached and then creates a backup into the house. Filter alarms encourage the property owner to learn to regularly service the filter, and not wait for an extreme circumstance, which is a concept that should be promoted for the entire system. In addition, this change will support the work proposed for inspectors (LHD field staff), and evaluators (3rd party, for-profit privately hired individuals) as proposed in Sections 54 and 54.1. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment and is agreeable to include the allowance of a filter alarm in this section. However, allowing a local health department to require an outlet filter alarm would cause an increase in fiscal impact which has already been completed for this revision. This will be considered in a future revision. 410 IAC 6-8.3-65 Effluent pumps: Recommend eliminating the use of junction boxes for electrical connections inside the dosing tank or dosing tank riser, and using junction boxes or control panels mounted on a post outside of the dosing tank. This allows for co-location of the alarm, and electrical disconnect (required by the Allen County Building Department) in one location. Electrical connections in the dosing tank are prone to corrosion due to inherent tank gases, or submersion when the pump fails and the tank backs up. Junction box size should be considered. The old standard 4” x 4” x 2” box (25 cubic inches) may be insufficient electrically for the number of wires coming in, depending on the circumstances. A junction box should be required to be a minimum of 50 cubic inches (4” x 4” x 4”). Use of a control panel allows for a better way to make the electrical connections and ensure that all components are wired in correctly, but also to ensure that a future service provider knows what component connections are located where in the panel. Minimum electrical cable sizing should be required given that not all counties have a building department and therefore electrical connections may not be inspected or verified to be completed correctly. Allen County, by ordinance, eliminated the use of junction boxes inside the tank, and moved to requiring control panels, coupled with an electrical standard in 2019. This was contained in an approved local ordinance. In addition, this change will support the work proposed for inspectors (LHD field staff), and evaluators (3rd party, for-profit privately hired individuals) as proposed in Sections 54 and 54.1. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. This may be considered in future revisions. 410 IAC 6-8.3-65 Distribution box specifications: Allen County very strongly and very strenuously agrees with adding the requirement of extending the distribution box to final grade. In addition, it must be made clear that the d-box riser extension is extending the d-box 'full size' to surface grade (full length and width - not simple putting a 4” or 6” cleanout through the lid (as some plastic d-box manufacturers have offered). A 6” cleanout does not allow the actual direct line of site viewing of the influent and effluent ports. Along with having a septic tank pumped, and cleaning an effluent filter, inspecting the distribution box is one of the most basic, important and elemental parts of proper service and maintenance. If a distribution box is not extended to grade it is significantly less likely that a property owner, evaluator, or service provider will inspect it. Allen County has seen numerous contractors point of sale inspections where the distribution box was noted as not being to surface, therefore no inspection could occur. In Allen County, those d-boxes not to surface would have been installed between 1955 (when Allen County first began issuing OSS construction permits but did not initially require d-boxes to final grade) and 1975. In 1975, Allen County revised its local ordinance to require distribution boxes to be extended to final surface grade. So, it must be pointed out that Allen County required by ordinance, that distribution boxes be extended to surface, more than 50 years ago and more than 2 years before the state of Indiana had developed its initial state code (Rule 410 IAC 6-8, filed 11-18-77). Further, given the numerous benefits of having direct access to the interior of the distribution box, the cost of adding a riser section is extremely minimal ($30 - $60, depending on manufacturer and riser diameter), and significantly less to add during initial installation, than the cost that would be charged by an installer / service provider to locate and uncover a d-box many years later. In addition, this change will support the work proposed for inspectors (LHD field staff), and evaluators (3rd party, for-profit privately hired individuals) as proposed in Sections 54 and 54.1. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates and agrees with this comment. 410 IAC 6-8.3-67 Pipe specifications: Seeking clarification on why the use of ASTM F 405 pipe is being eliminated for usage with subsurface drainage. This type of pipe has been the standard pipe used in Allen County for years. IDOH Response This standard has been withdrawn. It is the understanding of IDOH that this standard was joined with the ASTM F 667 standard. 410 IAC 6-8.3-70 Subsurface trench on-site sewage system suitability: Table IV SLR chart fails to address a number of items: IDOH Response IDOH agrees with the sentiment of all points in this comment. TRP members have expressed an interest in providing considerations for use of high shrink/swell soils and modifications of the soil loading rates in the rule in future revisions and after additional study. Addressing linear loading rate at that time would seem to be a logical addition to these changes. IDOH does appreciate and offer thanks to Allen County Department of Health for the research, conscientiousness, and willingness to share data, resources, and information with IDOH. 410 IAC 6-8.3-72 Elevated sand mound on-site sewage system suitability: Table V SLR chart fails to address a number of items. These are the same concerns that are addressed immediately above regarding Section 71 for the subsurface trench SLR chart. IDOH Response IDOH provides the same answer as above. 410 IAC 6-8.3-73 Table for on-site sewage system selection: For gravity flow systems the DDF column option of > 450 should be changed to < 450. IDOH Response The changes to this table were made incorrectly and IDOH is working to get this rectified prior to final adoption. 410 IAC 6-8.3-74 Subsurface trench on-site sewage systems: general design and construction requirements: Allen County strongly agrees with the additional requirements of protecting SAF from disturbance before, during and after construction, and stating that a LHD may require a site visit before issuing the permit and requiring the system components to be marked prior to the site visit. Allen County has visited sites during the design phase after items were flagged out and identified that there were issues at the site (SAF not on contour, minimum dimension requirements were not met, etc.) which needed to be addressed, which led to redesign. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates and agrees with this response. 410 IAC 6-8.3-79 Elevated sand mound on-site sewage systems: design of aggregate bed: IDOH Response Section 74(c) states that subsurface trench systems also must be as long and narrow as the site allows while not exceeding maximum trench lengths. While this also alludes to the concept of linear loading, IDOH agrees that adding a component of linear loading to system selection and sizing would be very beneficial for Indiana. This will be considered in a future revision. 410 IAC 6-8.3-90 Abandonment of an on-site sewage system: Allen County strongly agrees with the changes to this section, including the section that requires the LHD to issue a permit and require an inspection for the abandonment of an OSS. Allen County has required this by ordinance since 2011. Allen County has also been contacted numerous times by property owners that found septic tanks in their yard that had not been abandoned even though the home had been connected many decades ago. These types of phone calls and subsequent verification by field staff led to the change in the Allen County ordinance to begin requiring permits and inspections. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates and agrees with this comment. Other items for consideration: IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. This will be considered in a future revision. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. This will be considered in a future revision. Sampling ports: Perimeter drains which connect to a field tile instead of daylighting on the property surface are difficult to monitor. Adding a sampling port provides access to the perimeter drain outlet tile for sampling purposes and inspection purposes to verify that the outlet tile is draining. Like inspection ports, the sampling port should be a minimum of 8” in diameter. Allen County had required sampling ports by ordinance since 2011. This change was added to the ordinance based on numerous issues observed during Allen County's Onsite Wastewater Management District inspections. In addition, this change will support the work proposed for inspectors (LHD field staff), and evaluators (3rd party, for-profit privately hired individuals) as proposed in Sections 54 and 54.1. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. This will be considered in a future revision. IDOH Response IDOH agrees with this comment. This will be considered in a future revision. Public Comments Received at Public Hearing on 4/15/26 John Linn, PE, works for Abonmarche Consultants, Chair of the Indiana Builder's Association Residential On-site Sewage System subcommittee, Indiana Builder's Association's representative to the TRP, President of the St. Joseph County Board of Health. Representing Indiana Builder's Association at this hearing. IDOH Response IDOH appreciates these comments. IBA Additional Comments: IDOH Response IDOH appreciates these comments from the IBA and understands the needs and desires of homeowner must be balanced with protection of public health. Mark McClain, RPSS, member of the TRP representing IRSS Distributed a 3 page document with additional comments in regard to a definition for sinkhole. Redundancy in Table 2 of the rule, the definition of “limiting layer” where something has been stricken and needs to be added back, and the far right side of the soil loading rate tables needs clarification; there is ambiguity there. The additional comments provided in written format include: Sinkhole means a closed, circular, or elliptical concave depression, commonly funnel-shaped, characterized by surface and subsurface drainage and formed when acidic rainwater moves into the groundwater and dissolves soluble bedrock, such as limestone or dolomite, or by the collapse of underlying caves. Complexes of sinkholes in carbonate-rock terrain are the main components of karst topography which is a landscape dominated by subsurface drainage and sinkholes that range widely in size and density. IDOH Response Pursuant to the requirements of IC 4-22-2-19.5(3), the definition of sinkhole will be referred to as the definition provided in IC 16-41-25-7.2(a) in a footnote in Table I. Two of the table entries are overlapping and therefore changes in this table for the rule are necessary for clarification: IDOH Response This is an error made during LSA formatting. This will be corrected by re-inserting the “>” prior to the ½% in the first column of row 2 of the table. IDOH Response The requested text is still in the rule under the definition of limiting layer in section 20.2(b)(2). Multiple redundant sections of the rule describing limiting layers have been condensed into one definition of limiting layer. IDOH is not opposed to removing “guidelines” from this definition. “As approved by the department” was previously removed when this definition was added. As it reads now in the tables (Table IV and Table V), “Structureless, Massive, Friable, V. Friable” (left column) and “Structureless, Massive, Compact, Firm, V. Firm; Platy2” (right column) are very confusing and unclear as to their meaning and interpretative use. It should be changed and read as follows as per USDA-NRCS published standards1: Notes: _________________________ 1 Properties of the soil at each site shall be described by the registered professional soil scientist using the guidelines set forth in the soil manuals, technical bulletins, and handbooks of the NRCS. 2 Firmer consistence refers to extremely firm, slightly rigid, rigid, or very rigid. Karla Krezmer, Elkhart County Health Department Concerned about the definition for septic system failure which includes residential outbuildings with plumbing but are not connected to a residential on-site sewage system. She questions whether a hydrant specifically used for watering livestock would be considered plumbing and if a residential on-site sewage system would be required for only a hydrant for watering livestock. This needs further clarification. IDOH Response This rule regulates residential on-site sewage systems which accept sewage, defined as “all water-carried waste derived from ordinary living processes.” Water from a hydrant used to water livestock is not sewage, and, therefore, does not need to be to be discharged to a residential on-site sewage system or an onsite residential sewage discharging disposal system. The “plumbing” in a residential outbuilding of concern would be for a convenience toilet, hand sink, shower, etc. plumbed into the residential outbuilding. L.A. Brown, installer, member of IOWPA Concerns with the definition of watertight and the materials we have now. This is especially hard with perimeter drains where it is almost impossible to make that connection watertight. If we follow the definition of watertight as it is in the rule, we are going to be in violation. IDOH Response The definition of watertight in the rule pertains to tanks, solid piping, and distribution box materials. It is unclear what the definition of watertight in the comment associated with perimeter drains is referring to. Subsurface drainage tile is perforated and is not required to be watertight. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IDOH is soliciting public comment on the proposed rule. Comments may be submitted in one of the following ways: COMMENT PERIOD DEADLINE All comments must be postmarked or time-stamped not later than August 7, 2026. The rule, Regulatory Analysis, appendices referenced in the Regulatory Analysis, and materials incorporated by reference (if applicable) are on file at the Indiana Department of Health, Office of Legal Affairs, 2 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana and are available for public inspection. Copies of the rule, Regulatory Analysis, and appendices referenced in the Regulatory Analysis are available at the Indiana Department of Health office. This notice is for the second of two (2) thirty (30) day periods in which the public may comment on the proposed rule. Following this second public comment period, IDOH may adopt a version of the proposed rule that is the same as or does not substantially differ from the text of the proposed rule published in this notice. EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES IN PROPOSED RULE 410 IAC 6-8.3-7.1 was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and consistency and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-8.2 was updated to delete: This update was made for clarity and consistency and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-12 was updated to add: This update was made for various reasons: 410 IAC 6-8.3-14 was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and consistency throughout the rule and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-16.1 was updated to add: LSA removed “must remain” for the original draft. This update was to re-insert these words here clarity due to technical issues. 410 IAC 6-8.3-18 was updated to clarify: This update was made for clarity and in order to avoid using the defined term in the definition. The update was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-20.2(b)(1) was updated to add: (1) a soil loading rate less than twenty-five hundredths (0.25) gpd/ft2, as assigned in Table IV in section 70(b)(7) of this rule or Table V in section 72(b)(6) of this rule; or Inadvertently, the subsection was not included in this reference during LSA revisions. This update was made for technical accuracy. 410 IAC 6-8.3-20.2(b)(2)(B) was updated to say: This update was made to remove “guidelines” after NRCS to avoid redundancy and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-20.2(c)(1) and (2) was updated to add: These updates were made for technical accuracy. 410 IAC 6-8.3-32 was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and consistency throughout the rule and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-32.1 was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and consistency throughout the rule and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-33(3) was updated to add: During LSA revisions, this text was removed from the draft. It is needed for clarity and technical accuracy. 410 IAC 6-8.3-33.1(4) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and consistent use of terminology and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-33.2 was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-33.3 was updated: This update was made for clarity and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-35.2 was added to define: This addition was made for clarity and consistency in industry terminology and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-41.1 was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and to use terminology consistent with statute. 410 IAC 6-8.3-41.2 was added to define: This update was made for clarity as the term is used frequently throughout the rule and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-43 was updated to say: This word was removed during LSA revision, and IDOH would like to request it be replaced for clarity. 410 IAC 6-8.3-44(5), (6), and (7) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and consistency and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-45 was updated to add: This update was made for clarity, consistency, to comply with, based on a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-46(2) was updated to clarify: This update was made for clarity and accuracy and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-50.3(2) was updated to clarify: This text was changed during LSA revision. Relating to industry standards, IDOH requests this reverts to the original draft language for clarity. 410 IAC 6-8.3-50.5 was updated to add: The addition of “into the structure” was made for clarity and was based off a comment received from the public. The last sentence was deleted due to public comment. 410 IAC 6-8.3-51(e) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity, consistency, to comply with this statute. The update was also based off comments received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-52(i) was updated to say: This change was made to the draft during LSA revisions. Based upon several public comments, this is not well understood with this change. IDOH request that the word revert back to “shall.” “Must” does not work in this case either. 410 IAC 6-8.3-52(l)(3) was updated to say: This change was made during LSA revisions. This conjunction is necessary in this subsection. IDOH requests that it remain in the draft. 410 IAC 6-8.3-52.1(b)(2) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and compliance with statute. It is based off multiple comments received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53(d)(1) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and consistency and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53(d)(5)(D) was updated to clarify: This update was made for clarity and applicability and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53(d)(5)(E)(v) was updated to add: The “sub” in subsurface was initially left off of the word, but it is needed as there is a big difference between surface and subsurface drainage. IDOH requests this addition be accepted. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53(g) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and compliance with these statutes and was based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-53(l) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity, consistency, and to comply with these statutes. The updates were based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54(a) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and compliance with statute and are based off multiple comments received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1 was updated to say: This was mistakenly included as 401 rather than 410. This is a technical mistake that needs to be corrected; it is also based on public comment. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(a)(1) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(d)(1) was updated to clarify: This update was made for consistency with IC 13-18-12 and 327 IAC 7.1 in regards to IC 16-41-25-9 that was recently passed. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(d)(1)(E) was updated to add: The second “outlet” in this clause was removed during LSA revision. These are two different things, and both need to include the term “outlet.” IDOH requests that this be put back into the draft. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(d)(1)(G) was updated to clarify: This addition was made for clarity and consistency in industry terminology and was based off a comment received from the public. A definition for this device is also being added to this rule. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(d)(2)(D) was updated to add: This addition was made for clarity and consistency in industry terminology and was based off a comment received from the public. A definition for this device is also being added to this rule. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(d)(3)(E) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(d)(4)(C) through (G) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and thoroughness and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(d)(8) was updated to clarify: This update was made for consistency in terminology and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-54.1(e) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-56 was updated to add: This update was made for consistency in terminology and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-56(d)(2) was updated to clarify: This update was made for clarity and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-56(f)(1)(E) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and defined need and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-57(a) was updated to add: This footnote has been added for clarity and transparency with statutes and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-58(c) Table II was updated to clarify: The “>” was removed during an LSA update and is a technical issue that needs to be included in this rule for clarity and understanding and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-59(n) was updated to clarify: This change was made during LSA revisions and needs to be switched back to “shall” in this case. It just is not clear otherwise. This is in response to comments received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-62(h)(2) was updated to add: This change was made during LSA revisions and needs to be switched back to include “a visible alarm.” These are two separate things. 410 IAC 6-8.3-62.1(l)(1) was updated to delete: This change was made during LSA revisions and needs to be switched back to remove “the.” It just refers to sanitary sewer in general, not a specific sanitary sewer. 410 IAC 6-8.3-63(d)(7) was updated to add: 410 IAC 6-8.3-63(f) was added to add: This update was made for clarity and consistency with industry standards and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-64(c)(3) was updated to clarify: This change was made during LSA revisions and needs to be switched back to “or more.” It does not make sense in this context to use “at least.” 410 IAC 6-8.3-66(e) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and in request from comments received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-66(h)(2)(B) was updated to add: This change was made during LSA revisions and needs to be switched back in order to be understood correctly. 410 IAC 6-8.3-70(b)(7) Table IV was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and transparency with the statute referenced and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-70(c)(5) was updated to add: 410 IAC 6-8.3-71(b)(4) was updated to clarify: This update was made for clarity and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-71(c)(4) was updated to clarify: This update was made for clarity and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-71(e) was updated to clarify: This update was made for clarity and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-72(b)(6) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and transparency with the statute referenced and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-72(c)(5) was updated to add: 410 IAC 6-8.3-73 Table VI was updated to correct: The “<” symbol was inadvertently removed during LSA revision. This is a technical issue and needs to be reinserted into the rule and this is also based on a comment from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-73 Table VI was updated to clarify: This update was made for clarity and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-74(a)(1) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and consistency and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-74(a)(3) was updated to clarify: This update was made for clarity and consistency and is based off a comment received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-90(b)(3) was updated to clarify: This update was made for consistency with IC 13-18-12 and 327 IAC 7.1 in regard to IC 16-41-25-9 that was recently passed. 410 IAC 6-8.3-90(b)(4) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity and based off comments received from the public. 410 IAC 6-8.3-91(c) was updated to add: This update was made for clarity, consistency, to comply with, based off a comment received from the public. Four standards referenced in this rule were inadvertently removed during LSA revision. This is a technical issue and they need to be reinserted into the rule. PROPOSED RULE Sec. 5.1. "Base flood elevation" or "BFE" means the elevation of surface water resulting from a flood for which there is a one percent (1%) probability of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year, as calculated by a method and procedure approved by the natural resources commission. The base flood elevation is also referred to as the regulatory or one hundred (100) year flood elevation. Sec. 7.1. "Best judgment" means the process by which a local health department reviews the site and soil evaluation report and site characteristics in a situation where a residential on-site sewage system has failed, and a replacement soil absorption system cannot meet the requirements of this rule for new construction. The local health department may use their best judgment to approve deviations from this rule on a case-by-case basis to permit the optimal approach to soil absorption system replacement that meets the requirements of this rule to the greatest extent possible. Sec. 7.2. "Cesspool" means a relatively shallow underground reservoir from which effluent seeps out of the sidewalls. A cesspool is typically not preceded by a septic tank. Sec. 8.1. "Construction, new" means either: Best judgment, as described in this rule for replacement of failed soil absorption systems, may not be used for new construction. Sec. 8.2. "Construction, repair or replacement" means either: Sec. 12. (a) "Design daily flow" or "DDF" means the calculated peak daily sewage flow from a residence used to design a residential on-site sewage system. It is one hundred fifty (150) gallons per day times the number of bedrooms and bedroom equivalents. (b) For dwellings that are not tiny houses or recreational vehicles, the DDF is one hundred fifty (150) gallons per day times the number of bedrooms and bedroom equivalents. (c) For tiny houses, the DDF is a minimum of three hundred (300) gallons per day. (d) For recreational vehicles used as dwellings that will be connected to a residential on-site sewage system, the DDF is seventy-five (75) gallons per day times the maximum occupancy number indicated by the recreational vehicle manufacturer. This does not apply to recreational vehicles in campgrounds that are regulated under 410 IAC 6-7.1, et. seq. Sec. 12.1. "Designer" means an individual who designs and submits detailed on-site sewage system construction plans to the local health department for review as part of a construction permit application. Sec. 14. "Drainageway" means the channel portion of the landscape, or ephemeral stream, in which surface water or rainwater runoff gathers intermittently to flow flows to a lower elevation. Sec. 14.1. "Drywell" means a subsurface excavation, typically reinforced along the outer walls with brick, blocks, metal, or precast concrete, and may contain aggregate in the interior of the lining. A drywell is often bottomless. A drywell may or may not be preceded by a septic tank and is usually deeper than thirty-six (36) inches. Sewage seeps out of the sidewalls and bottom of a drywell. Sec. 16.1. "Fixed reference point" means a location that is readily identifiable, from which measurements can be taken to describe the location of soil borings, soil pits, and system components, and must remain in place until the project is completed. Sec. 17.1. "Fragic soil properties" means a diagnostic soil characteristic associated with some soil aggregates in subsoil horizons of mineral soils. Aggregates with fragic properties are firm or firmer and brittle when the moisture content is at or near field capacity. Air-dry fragments slake when submerged in water, but are weakly cemented or not cemented. In addition, the aggregates show evidence of pedogenesis and are restrictive to roots. In effect, fragic soil properties are recognized in materials exhibiting all the characteristics of a fragipan except for continuity or thickness. Fragic soil properties are diagnostic for fragic subgroups (intergrades to other soil classes having a fragipan). Soil horizons that exhibit fragic properties, including those that qualify as fragipans, are designated by the suffix “x” (e.g., Bx or Btx). Sec. 17.2. "Fragipan" means a natural, diagnostic subsurface horizon with very low organic matter, high bulk density, or high mechanical strength relative to overlying and underlying horizons, and has a hard or very hard consistence (seemingly cemented) when dry, but showing a moderate to weak brittleness when moist. The layer typically has redoximorphic features, is slowly or very slowly permeable to water, is considered root restricting, and usually has few to many bleached, roughly vertical planes that are faces of coarse or very coarse polyhedrons or prisms, as classified in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Taxonomy. Sec. 18. "Health officer" means the health officer representative of a local board of health department. Sec. 18.1. "High strength waste" means either of the following: Sec. 18.2. "IAPMO" means the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. Sec. 19.1. "Inspector" means an individual who performs inspections of existing on-site sewage systems in compliance with section 54.1 of this rule to determine system compliance with this rule. Sec. 19.2. "Installer" means an individual who performs any work in furtherance of the: of a residential on-site sewage system subject to the provisions of this rule. Sec. 20. "Interceptor drain" means a subsurface drainage system constructed only on the upslope side or sides of a soil absorption system for the purpose of lowering a seasonal high-water table and diverting subsurface water around the soil absorption system site. Sec. 20.1. "Involuntary" means a need to modify or improve a dwelling or residential outbuilding due to factors outside the owner's control, such as destruction by wind, fire, flood, or other natural disaster, or condemnation of a dwelling. Sec. 20.2. (a) "Limiting layer" means a soil horizon that restricts the suitability of a site for a soil absorption system or the depth of installation of a soil absorption system. A limiting layer can be a restrictive soil horizon or poor filter. (b) A restrictive limiting layer is a soil horizon with: (c) A poor filter limiting layer is a soil horizon with: Sec. 27. "Perimeter drain" means a subsurface drainage system that completely surrounds a soil absorption system for the purpose of lowering a seasonal high-water table or and preventing movement of subsurface water into a soil absorption system site. Sec. 30.1. "Recreational vehicle" means a travel trailer, park model, collapsible trailer, truck-mounted camper, or motor home. Sec. 32. "Residential on-site sewage system" or "on-site sewage system" means all equipment and devices necessary for proper conduction, collection, storage, and on-site treatment and on-site disposal dispersal of sewage from: The term includes, but is not limited to, residential sewers, grease traps, septic tanks, secondary treatment units, dosing tanks, effluent pumps, distribution boxes, soil absorption systems, temporary subsurface drainage systems, dispersal areas, sewage holding tanks, and sanitary vault privies. The term also includes any miscellaneous components that may be required to ensure proper operation and function of the system as described in this rule. Sec. 32.1. "Residential on-site sewage system expansion" means the addition of any system component or components, or an increase in the size of a soil absorption system to try to prevent, stop, or abate a residential on-site sewage system failure or to increase the capacity of the system without a voluntary increase in the design daily flow of the structure or structures served. Sec. 33. "Residential on-site sewage system failure" means a residential on-site sewage system that exhibits at least one (1) or more of the following: A failed residential on-site sewage system is a public and an environmental health hazard. Sec. 33.1. "Residential on-site sewage system malfunction" or "malfunction" means a residential on-site sewage system component that is not functioning in accordance with this rule or the manufacturers' requirements. Residential on-site sewage system malfunction does not have to meet the definition of residential on-site sewage system failure, but there may also be failure. Malfunction may include, but is not limited to, at least one (1) of the following: Sec. 33.2. "Residential on-site sewage system repair" means an activity undertaken to replace or modify an existing component or components of an existing on-site sewage system. The repair may include the addition, repair, or replacement of a component or components: Residential on-site sewage system repair does not include routine maintenance of the system. Sec. 33.3. "Residential on-site sewage system replacement" means an activity undertaken to replace a soil absorption system. Residential on-site sewage system replacement may also include adding, replacing, or repairing any other system component or components needed for the system to comply with this rule. In accordance with this rule, the best judgment of the local health department may be used, when necessary and appropriate, for the repair or replacement of a soil absorption system in a failing residential on-site sewage system. Sec. 35.1. "Responsible charge of installers" means the direct control and personal supervision by a registered installer of the work being performed at a job site for the installation of an on-site sewage system, including, but not limited to, site preparation work, tilling, construction, finish grading, and soil stabilization for all components of the on-site sewage system being installed. Sec. 35.2. "Secondary safety device" means a device installed below a riser cover of a tank that is commercially manufactured for the purpose of preventing accidental entry into the tank and is compliant with IC 16-41-25-3. Sec. 39. "Segment drain" means a subsurface drainage system constructed between two (2) soil absorption fields in the same on-site sewage system for the purpose of lowering a seasonal high-water table and intercepting and diverting subsurface water away from the downslope soil absorption field. Sec. 41.1. "Sewage holding tank" means a tank or series of tanks designed to hold sewage until it is pumped by a licensed septage management vehicle, and the outlet of the tank or the last tank in the series has been sealed to prevent sewage from discharging. Sec. 41.2. "Soil" has the meaning set forth in IC 25-31.5-1-9. Sec. 43. "Soil absorption system" or "soil absorption field" means pipes or chambers laid in a system of subsurface trenches, or pipes laid in elevated beds, into which the effluent from the septic tank is discharged into the soil for treatment and dispersal. The soil absorption system also includes the distribution box and the effluent sewers after the distribution box, or the pressure manifold. Sec. 43.1. "Soil boring" means an excavation made by a soil auger, a probe, or similar small diameter soil sampling equipment used to pull soil samples out of the ground that are used to provide a description and characterization of the soil. Sec. 44. "Soil horizon" means a layer of soil or soil material approximately parallel to the land surface and differing from adjacent genetically related layers in physical, chemical, and biological properties or characteristics, such as: Sec. 45. "Soil loading rate" means the allowable rate of application of septic tank effluent, to the expressed in U.S. gallons, that may be applied daily per square foot of soil. It is expressed in gallons per day per square foot. Sec. 45.1. "Soil pit" means an excavation that is wide, deep, and long enough for the soil scientist to enter safely, according to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration and any other federal, state, or local requirements, to directly observe, characterize, and describe the soil profile. Sec. 46. "Soil profile analysis" means the observation and evaluation of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the soil horizons or layers to: Sec. 49. "Subsurface drainage system" means any pipe with or without a layer of gravel, stone, or coarse sand, placed below the surface of the ground and designed or constructed in such a manner as to: way that: Interceptor, drains, perimeter, drains, and segment drains are types of subsurface drainage systems. Sec. 50. "Technology new to Indiana" or "TNI" means on-site sewage treatment or disposal methods, processes, or equipment not described in this rule that have been approved by the department in accordance with section 52(h) of this rule IC 16-19-3-27.5. Sec. 50.1. "Temporary benchmark" means an object whose actual elevation, or an arbitrarily assumed elevation of that object, is used as a point of reference until the project is completed. Sec. 50.2. "Tiny house" means a structure used as a dwelling that is not more than four hundred (400) square feet in floor area, not including lofts. Sec. 50.3. "Upgraded piping" means: Sec. 50.4. "Voluntary" means an owner's intentional or deliberate action to modify or improve a dwelling or residential outbuilding. Sec. 50.5. "Watertight" means that water or effluent cannot leak into or out of the structure except through piping in the designated pipe penetration ports or connectors. Pipe penetrations or connections must result in a connection that does not allow liquid to flow around the pipe penetration into the structure. Results of watertightness testing, as specified in IAPMO/ANSI Z1000-2019 9.1, may be provided to confirm watertightness of new tanks. For existing tanks, the water test procedure outlined in IAPMO/ANSI Z1000-2019 9.1.3 may be used for watertightness testing. Sec. 51. (a) This rule shall be administered by the a local boards of health department through their health officer and the health officer's authorized representatives. (b) Each local health department residential on-site sewage system permit program is subject to review by the department. A review may include, but not be limited to, a review of the permits issued, supporting documentation, and a review of on-site sewage system installations. (c) In accordance with IC 16-41-25-10 and IC 16-41-25-11, the department or its agent, or the health officer or the health officer's their agent, shall be permitted to enter upon all properties at the proper time for the following purposes necessary to achieve compliance with this rule: (d) A local ordinance is not considered more stringent than this rule if it is in accordance with IC 16-19-3-27.8. (e) Residential onsite sewage discharging disposal systems, as regulated by IC 13-18-12-9: Sec. 52. (a) No person shall throw, run, drain, seep, or otherwise dispose into any of the surface waters or groundwaters of this state, or cause or permit or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowed to seep, or otherwise disposed into those waters, organic or inorganic matter from a dwelling or residential on-site sewage system that would cause or contribute to a health hazard or water pollution. (b) If a residential on-site sewage system failure occurs, the local health officer may require the residence and residential outbuilding, if applicable, to make a direct connection to a sanitary sewer, if the sanitary sewer is available within three hundred (300) feet of the affected property line and available for connection at a construction cost and connection fee estimated not to exceed one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the cost estimated for installing an on-site sewage system to serve the residence or residential outbuilding. (b) (c) The: of residential on-site sewage systems shall must comply with the provisions of this rule. (c) All (d) Residential on-site sewage systems utilizing using sanitary privies shall must conform to department bulletin S.E. 11, "The Sanitary Vault Privy", 2021 edition. (d) (e) A dwelling that is not connected, or cannot be connected, to a sanitary sewerage system shall must be provided with a residential on-site sewage system that includes a septic tank and a soil absorption system that has not failed. one of the following: (e) A temporary sewage holding tank is an alternative method of sewage disposal subject to the written approval of the department, except as provided in subsection (f). A temporary sewage holding tank shall not be used as a primary means of residential sewage disposal except: (f) A temporary sewage holding tank may be approved by the local health department: (f) A cesspool or drywell, with or without a septic tank, is not a suitable means of residential sewage disposal. (g) If any conditions preclude the installation of a residential on-site sewage system as described in this rule, the local board of health department may not approve the use of other residential on-site sewage system technology unless written approval from the department is: (h) In order To permit development of new or more efficient sewage treatment or disposal processes, the department may approve the installation of experimental and TNI equipment, facilities, or pollution control devices for which extensive experience or records of use have not been developed in Indiana. The applicant for the approval must submit evidence of sufficient clarity and conclusiveness to convince the department that the proposal has a reasonable and substantial probability of satisfactory operation without failure TNI may be approved in accordance with IC 16-19-3-27.5. (i) No portion of the a residential on-site sewage system or its associated drainage system, a sewage holding tank, or a sanitary vault privy shall be constructed upon on property other than that from which the sewage originates unless easements an easement or a declaration of an on-site sewage system easement, if both properties are owned by the same person, which grant grants permission for the construction and access for system maintenance, have has been obtained for that property and have has been legally approved and recorded by the proper authority or commission. (j) Residential on-site sewage systems shall not be used for the disposal of water from: These sewage systems shall also not be used for the disposal of chemical wastes in quantities that would pollute groundwater or inhibit solids settling or digestion in the septic tank. (k) A jetted bathtub with a capacity of greater than one hundred twenty-five (125) gallons shall must be treated as an extra bedroom for the on-site sewage system sizing requirements of this rule. (l) An existing residential on-site sewage system may be considered for connection or reconnection to a new or replacement dwelling or residential outbuilding if the following apply: Sec. 52.1. (a) On-site sewage system installers shall abide by all associated requirements in state statutes, rules, and local ordinances regarding on-site sewage systems. (b) An installer shall register with the local health department if they wish to install, expand, replace, alter, repair, or abandon a residential on-site sewage system. Registration requires: (c) A registered installer has responsible charge for the work being performed on the on-site sewage system. (d) An installer who only abandons on-site sewage systems is exempt from competency testing. (e) A lapse of certification or registration, or repeated violation of any state statute, rule, or ordinance regarding on-site sewage systems, may result in the revocation or denial of registration renewal by the local health officer. Sec. 53. (a) For a dwelling or place of residence that will not be connected to a sanitary sewerage system, the owner, or agent of the owner, shall obtain a written construction permit, signed by the health officer, for construction of a residential on-site sewage system prior to before the: (b) A local health department shall not issue a construction permit for a new on-site sewage system, the repair of an on-site sewage system, or the replacement of a soil absorption system using TNI without the written approval of the department, except for the provisions of section 52(g) of this rule. (c) The approval of a site by the local plan commission or the county recorder does not constitute approval by the local health officer. (d) The Before a permit is issued, an application for a construction permit shall must be made on a form provided by to the local health department. The A complete application shall must contain, or include as attachments, the following: (e) When site limitations and soil information for the site have been determined, the owner is responsible for the residential on-site sewage system design that: (f) The local health department may require scaled drawings of the site and residential on-site sewage system as part of the application process. (g) In accordance with IC 16-41-25-1(a), the local health department shall issue or deny, in writing to the owner, a residential on-site sewage system construction permit within thirty (30) days of receipt of an after receiving a complete application and plan submittal verified compliant with this rule: (h) No construction on the residential on-site sewage system may take place if the residential on-site sewage system site is disturbed or altered after the on-site evaluation by the addition of fill material, other than construction necessary for the residential on-site sewage system, or by cutting, scraping, compaction compacting, or the removal of removing soil, until a new on-site evaluation has been conducted and a modified construction permit has been issued. (i) A soil absorption system replacement for a residential on-site sewage system shall must meet or exceed the minimum provisions of this rule. When a replacement soil absorption field is necessary due to on-site sewage system failure, and if the replacement soil absorption system cannot meet all of the provisions of this rule, deviations to this rule for a soil absorption system replacement may be made in accordance with the best judgment of the local department of health based on the following: department as follows: (j) For a residential on-site sewage system failure, the local health department may require an approved aeration unit, in compliance with section 60(h) of this rule, for aerobic digestion after the septic tank and before the soil absorption field, if high strength waste is confirmed to be a contributing factor to the failure. The aeration unit manufacturer shall confirm that the specified unit will reduce the waste strength below that of high strength waste. No sizing reduction for the septic tank or soil absorption field shall be allowed for the use of an aeration unit in this way. The aeration unit may not be required if the homeowner agrees to an appropriate plan approved by the local health officer to reduce the waste strength in another way. (k) If it is determined that the proposed on-site sewage system design does not meet the minimum requirements of this rule, the permit may be denied in accordance with section 55(e) of this rule. (l) The permittee shall notify the health officer or the health officer's designee when the work is ready for final inspection: (m) The construction permit for a residential on-site sewage system in violation of this section may be revoked by the health officer in accordance with section 55(e) of this rule. Requirements of permits issued for the construction of residential on-site sewage systems shall not be considered fulfilled until the installation is completed, to the satisfaction of in compliance with this rule and the approved construction plan, and approved by the health officer or the health officer's duly authorized representative. (n) Individual lots in subdivisions designed to utilize use residential on-site sewage systems, for which the plats were approved by the local plan commission, county health department, or county recorder and recorded prior to before December 21, 1990, are exempt from the provisions of sections 70(b)(8) 70(b)(7) and 72(b)(7) 72(b)(6) of this rule if the soils on the individual lot have characteristics that would allow the soil to be rated as slight or moderate in accordance with guidelines as set forth in the soils manuals and handbooks of the NRCS. The soil absorption system to serve each lot that is exempted by this section shall must meet the sizing criteria as follows: (o) Individual lots in subdivisions designed to utilize use residential on-site sewage systems, the plats for which were approved by the local plan commission and recorded prior to before December 21, 1990, will be granted an exemption by the department from the provisions of section 70(b)(8) 70(b)(7) of this rule if the health officer of the county in which where the development is located certifies to the department, in writing, that: The certification must be accompanied by a brief description of the on-site sewage system approved for each lot for which exemption is requested, including information on the design of the on-site sewage system, as well as information on the type of soil on the site. An affirmative response to subdivisions (1) and (2) must be included in the certification for the exemption to the provisions of section 70(b)(8) 70(b)(7) of this rule to be granted. Sec. 54. (a) Local health departments may require written operating permits in accordance with IC 16-19-3-27(b)(2), for on-site sewage systems as described in IC 16-19-3-27, for on-site sewage systems, where best judgment of the local health department was used for permit issuance, and for sanitary vault privies. Local health departments shall issue operating permits for sewage holding tanks in accordance with IC 16-41-25-9 and section 62.1(j) of this rule. Operating permits shall be issued as follows: (b) An operating permit shall must identify all components of an on-site sewage system requiring inspection and maintenance. (c) The records for an operating permit requiring scheduled inspection and maintenance shall must contain the following: (d) The An owner shall provide the local health department with the following: (e) The local health department may require a system to be inspected, as described in section 54.1 of this rule, detailing the functionality of the system components and maintenance concerns before operating permit renewal. (f) If a service contract is discontinued for any reason, the owner or service provider shall contact the local health department and a new service contract for operation and maintenance must be provided to the local health department within one (1) month of the lapse in contract. (e) (g) The operating permit for a residential on-site sewage system in violation of subsection (d) may be revoked by the health officer in accordance with section 55(e) of this rule. Sec. 54.1. (a) When an on-site sewage system is to be inspected for: the requirements of this section apply. (b) Before an existing on-site sewage system is inspected, the inspector shall obtain a copy of the on-site sewage system construction permit and operating permit files, if available, including, but not limited to, the permit or permits, construction plan, final inspection documentation, and any complaint information related to the on-site sewage system being inspected from the local health department. (c) The system must minimally include a residential on-site sewage system as defined in this rule as follows: (d) Each component of the on-site sewage system must be thoroughly inspected and documented, including, but not limited to the following: (e) For an operating permit required by the local health department, within thirty (30) days of a completed inspection, a written report of the system evaluation shall be submitted to the local health department, including, but not limited to the following: Sec. 55. (a) Should If a residential on-site sewage system fail, fails, the failure shall must be corrected by the owner within the time limit set by the health officer. (b) If any component of a residential on-site sewage system is found to be: the health officer may require the repair, replacement, or service of that component. The repair, replacement, or service shall must be conducted within the time limit set by the health officer. (c) Any A person found to be violating this rule may be served by the health officer with a written order stating the nature of the violation and providing a time limit for satisfactory correction thereof. (d) After receiving an order in writing from the local board of health department or the health officer, the owner of the property shall comply with the provisions of this rule, as set forth in the order, and within the time limit specified therein. The order shall must be served on the owner or the agent of the owner, but may be served on any person who, by contract with the owner, has assumed the duty of complying with the provisions of an order. (e) The health officer may deny an application for a construction or an operating permit, or may revoke a permit previously issued, for reasons including, but not limited to, any of the following: (f) The written denial or revocation shall must state the following: (g) The parties involved may agree to use the appeal procedures set forth in IC 4-21.5, the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act. Sec. 56. (a) Before issuance of any a permit for construction of a residential on-site sewage system or the replacement or alteration of a soil absorption system, an on-site evaluation, which shall include includes a description of the soil profile, shall must be conducted. (b) Properties of the soil at each site shall must be described by a registered professional soil scientist using the guidelines set forth in the soil manuals, technical bulletins, and handbooks of the NRCS. (c) At least three (3) soil profile descriptions must be completed in the area of the soil absorption field and provide good coverage of the entire soil absorption field area. (c) (d) Soil profile information shall must be recorded: whichever is shallower. (d) (e) The on-site evaluation shall must be conducted before application and plan submittal. (e) (f) The information in the written on-site soils evaluation report shall must include the following: (f) (g) When soil characteristics are to be used for calculations for the depth of a subsurface drainage system, the following information shall must be recorded to a depth of eighty (80) inches: (h) On-site soil evaluation reports created from the evaluation of the soil profiles to be used for obtaining an on-site sewage system construction permit must be signed by the registered professional soil scientist and submitted directly to the local health department by the soil scientist. Sec. 57. (a) All Septic tanks, dosing tanks, lift stations, and soil absorption systems shall must be located in accordance with Table I as follows: (b) A residential on-site sewage system shall may not be located within two hundred (200) feet of a public water supply lake or reservoir. However, a residential on-site sewage system that includes secondary treatment may be less than two hundred (200) feet, but not less than fifty (50) feet, from the normal or ordinary high-water mark of the lake or reservoir if it: (c) A residential on-site sewage system approved under the provisions of subsection (b) must be maintained for the life of the system through an operating permit issued under the provisions of section 54 of this rule. (d) Sewers shall may not be located within fifty (50) feet of a water supply well or subsurface pump suction line, except as follows: (e) Water lines and sewers shall may not be laid in the same trench, as follows: Sec. 58. (a) A dispersal area is required for a soil absorption system when: (b) When the conditions in subsection (a) apply, the following requirements shall must be met: (c) For sites that do not meet the conditions of subsection (a), the minimum dispersal area shall must be ten (10) feet. For sites that meet the conditions of subsection (a), the dispersal area shall must be as indicated in Table II as follows: (d) Any A disturbance within a dispersal area shall must not create compacted soil material. (e) The location of the dispersal area shall must meet the following requirements: Sec. 59. (a) A surface diversion: (b) When a subsurface drainage system is constructed, it shall must be sufficiently deep to lower a seasonal high-water table as required in subsection (d) or (e). (c) If the site has a slope of equal to or less than two percent (2%), the subsurface drain shall must surround the on-site sewage system. If the site slope exceeds two percent (2%), the subsurface drain may be constructed only on the upslope side of the on-site sewage system. (d) If the seasonal high-water table is perched, the subsurface drain trench shall must be constructed at least two (2) inches into structureless massive compact clay with firm or very firm consistence, glacial till, or fragipan whenever site and soil conditions permit. When the drain cannot be constructed at least two (2) inches into the structureless massive compact clay with firm or very firm consistence, glacial till, or fragipan, the depth of the drain shall must be the following unless calculations are used to determine drain depth: (e) If drainage calculations are used to determine drain depth, drainage formulas and calculations shall must be submitted to the local health department as part of the plan submittal, showing a lowering of the seasonal high-water table: (f) Subsurface drainage systems shall must be located at soil absorption system sites as follows: (g) The A subsurface drain pipe shall must be: (h) The subsurface drain trench shall: must: (i) A subsurface drain trench installed upslope from a residential on-site sewage system shall must be: (j) A subsurface drain trench installed on sides or downslope, and segment drain trenches may be: (k) The aggregate backfill for subsurface drain trenches shall must meet the minimum requirements of: (l) When INDOT Specification 23 sand is used for backfill, the drainpipe shall must be wrapped with a geotextile fabric. (m) The aggregate used as backfill in the perimeter, interceptor, or segment drain trenches described in subsections (i)(2) and (j)(2) shall must be covered with a geotextile fabric barrier that meets the minimum requirements in section 69 of this rule in such a manner as to prevent way that prevents the aggregate from becoming clogged with the earth fill. (n) The subsurface drain trench and the associated discharge piping shall must be constructed to permit water to flow by gravity throughout its length. No pumps or siphons shall be utilized used to effect the movement of the collected water. (o) Tile outlets shall must be provided with rodent guards. Sec. 60. (a) Septic tanks shall must be: (b) Cast in place, concrete block, wood, or metal septic tanks are prohibited. (c) Every septic tank shall must have a minimum capacity below the water line as specified in Table III as follows: (d) All Septic tank effluent, including effluent from tanks fitted with aeration units for aerobic digestion, shall must discharge into a soil absorption system or other treatment system as approved in accordance with section 52(h) of this rule. (e) Two-compartment tanks shall must meet the following requirements: (f) When multiple tanks are used in series, no single tank may be less than seven hundred fifty (750) gallons. The larger of the two (2) tanks must be upstream of the other. (g) When sewage is pumped into a septic tank using a grinder pump: (h) Tanks fitted with aeration units for aerobic digestion shall: must: (i) Water softener backwash shall must be discharged to: Sec. 61. (a) The minimum water depth in any compartment shall must be thirty (30) inches. (b) The maximum water depth for calculating septic tank capacity shall must not exceed six and one-half (6 ½) feet. (c) The inlet baffle or sanitary tee shall must extend at least: (d) All New septic tanks must be provided with an outlet filter that meets or exceeds the requirements of section 64 of this rule. (e) Any A septic tank not provided with an outlet filter in the interior of the tank shall must be provided with: (f) There shall must be at least one (1) inch clear space between the underside of the septic tank lid and the top of the inlet and outlet baffles or tees. (g) Scum storage capacity (space between the liquid level and the top of the outlet baffle or tees) shall must be not less than twelve and one-half percent (12.5%) (12 ½%) of the liquid depth of the septic tank. (h) The inlet baffle shall must not be more than twelve (12) inches nor less than four (4) inches from the inside of the inlet end of the tank. The outlet baffle shall must not be more than twelve (12) inches nor less than four (4) inches from the outlet end of the septic tank. Baffles shall must be constructed of durable materials not subject to corrosion or decay. (i) The bottom of the septic tank inlet shall must not be less than two (2) inches nor more than four (4) inches above the liquid level. (j) Reinforced concrete septic tanks shall must be constructed of concrete designed to withstand all structural, hydraulic, hydrostatic, earth loads, and any anticipated traffic loads, and with a compressive strength of four thousand (4,000) pounds per square inch or greater. (k) Concrete septic tank walls shall must be at least two and one-half (2 ½) inches or greater in thickness. The design must allow at least one (1) inch cover over reinforcing steel or welded wire fabric. (l) Concrete septic tank bottoms shall must conform to the specifications set forth for septic tank walls. (m) Concrete septic tank tops shall must be a minimum of at least four (4) inches in thickness and reinforced with three-eighths (3/8) inch reinforcing rods in a twelve (12) inch grid or equivalent. (n) Type III fibers, meeting ASTM C 1116-10a(2015), are permitted only as a secondary reinforcing material. Fiber additions will be considered only for the purpose of resisting temperature and shrinkage efforts, and not as primary reinforcing material. (o) All Access openings shall must meet the following requirements: (p) All Risers shall must meet the following requirements: (q) Pipe connectors shall must be provided that meet the following requirements: Sec. 62. (a) Dosing tanks must be: (b) Cast in place, concrete block, wood, or metal dosing tanks are prohibited. (c) Reinforced concrete dosing tanks shall must be constructed of concrete designed to withstand all structural, hydraulic, hydrostatic, earth loads, and any anticipated traffic loads, and with a minimum compressive strength of four thousand (4,000) pounds per square inch or greater. (d) Concrete dosing tank walls shall must be at least two and one-half (2 ½) inches or greater in thickness. The design shall must allow at least one (1) inch cover over reinforcing steel or welded wire fabric. (e) The required liquid holding capacity of the dosing tank shall must not be considered as any portion of the required liquid volume of the septic tank. (f) The liquid holding capacity of a dosing tank must equal the dose volume required by this rule for each type of soil absorption system, in addition to the volume of liquid that will drain back from any effluent force main when pumping ceases. stops. Additional capacity must be provided to: (g) Dosing tanks shall must be provided with pipe connectors that meet the following requirements: (h) Each dosing tank shall must be fitted with an effluent pump sized in conformance with section 65 of this rule and section 76(b), 78(d), 78(q), 82(b), or 82(j) of this rule, whichever is applicable, with controls and with a high-water alarm switch set at a level above the design high-water mark. The alarm shall: must: (i) Switches or sensors that are comparable to mercury float level switches shall must be used for dosing tank effluent pump start and stop controls and for high-water alarms. Sec. 62.1. (a) A sewage holding tank is an alternative method of sewage disposal in accordance with IC 16-41-25-9. (b) Sewage holding tanks must be: (c) A temporary sewage holding tank may be used: (d) Sewage holding tanks must have the minimum capacity of: (e) Reinforced concrete sewage holding tanks must be constructed of concrete designed to withstand all structural, hydraulic, hydrostatic, earth loads, and any anticipated traffic loads, and with a compressive strength of four thousand (4,000) pounds per square inch or greater. (f) Concrete sewage holding tank walls and bottoms must be at least two and one-half (2 ½) inches or greater in thickness. The design must allow at least one (1) inch cover over reinforcing steel or welded wire fabric. (g) Concrete sewage holding tank tops must be at least four (4) inches in thickness and reinforced with three-eighths (⅜) inch reinforcing rods in a twelve (12) inch grid or equivalent. (h) ASTM C 1116-10a(2015) type III fibers are permitted only as a secondary reinforcing material. Fiber additions will be considered only for the purpose of resisting temperature and shrinkage efforts, and not as primary reinforcing material. (i) Sewage holding tanks must have at least one (1) opening eighteen (18) inches in minimum diameter for pumping access positioned in a way that allows for maintenance, cleaning, and servicing. (j) Holding tanks are required to have an operating permit issued by the local health department. (k) Receipts from pumping and maintenance of a sewage holding tank, and other documents for repair or modification of a sewage holding tank, must be submitted to the local health department within thirty (30) days of the service provided or a time frame approved by the local health department. (l) If a sewage holding tank is not operated in a safe and sanitary way and in accordance with IC 16-41-25-9 and this rule, the local health department may require the residence or residential outbuilding to: Sec. 63. (a) Septic, tanks and dosing, and sewage holding tanks shall must be installed level on: (b) All Drain holes in septic, tanks and dosing, and sewage holding tanks shall must be: (c) When the top of the septic, tank or dosing, or sewage holding tank is installed at or above grade, all access openings shall must be fitted with watertight, securely fastened covers. (d) When the top of the septic, tank or dosing, or sewage holding tank is installed below grade, risers shall: must: (e) Septic tanks and dosing tanks shall not be installed with the top of the riser below the RFE. (f) All (e) The joints in the sewer connecting septic tanks in series or septic tanks to dosing tanks shall must be sealed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in order to be watertight and to withstand the pressures exerted on them. (f) All tanks must be installed using the manufacturer's recommended buoyancy controls when conditions necessitate. Sec. 64. (a) An outlet filter shall must be installed in the septic tank of new on-site sewage systems and existing on-site sewage systems requiring a new septic tank. (b) For on-site sewage systems requiring repair, or soil absorption systems requiring replacement, the local health department may require an outlet filter. The outlet filter, if required by the local health department, must meet the requirements of this section. (c) Outlet filters shall must be located in the outlet end of: (d) An access opening of eighteen (18) inches in minimum dimension shall must be: (e) Outlet filters shall: must: (f) The outlet filter housing shall: must: (g) A filter alarm may be installed in the septic tank to indicate when the outlet filter is in need of service. (h) An outlet filter with cartridge shall must remain in service for the life of the septic tank. (i) Outlet filter manufacturers shall provide installation and maintenance instructions with each outlet filter. Outlet filters shall must be: (j) Outlet filters shall must be serviced according to the manufacturer's service recommendations, but no not less frequently than each time the septic tank is cleaned, as follows: Sec. 65. (a) All Effluent pumps shall must be: (b) Effluent pumps shall must be provided with a suitable means of quick, convenient disconnection from the discharge piping, as follows: (c) All Floats for pump operation shall must be mounted according to manufacturer's specifications using fasteners manufactured for that purpose. (d) Controls other than liquid level sensors shall must not be located within the dosing tank. (e) Junction boxes shall must be rated as a NEMA 4X, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, NEMA 250-2008 All 250-2020. The connectors to the junction box shall must form a watertight seal: (f) Any A connector not used for wiring shall must be fitted with a watertight plug. Sec. 66. (a) Concrete distribution boxes shall must be constructed of concrete with a compressive strength of four thousand (4,000) pounds per square inch or greater. Other materials may be considered on a case-by-case basis. All materials must: (b) The distribution box material must: (b) (c) The minimum interior dimension of a distribution box shall must be twelve (12) inches. (c) (d) The distribution box shall or top of the distribution box riser must be fitted with a watertight, securely fastened removable lid for access. The distribution box may be fitted with a riser to the ground surface. The riser joints and the lid connection to the riser must be watertight. (e) For all newly installed distribution boxes, when more than one outlet of a distribution box is used to distribute effluent to a soil absorption field and the distribution box will be installed below final grade, a riser must be installed over the box and extend to or above final grade. The joints between riser sections must be watertight. (f) Distribution boxes must be stabilized to prevent movement during installation and operation. (d) (g) The interior bottom of the distribution box shall must be at least four (4) inches below the invert elevation of the effluent ports. A minimum of At least eight (8) inches freeboard above the invert elevation of the effluent port shall must be provided. (e) (h) The influent port shall must be located or baffled to prevent unequal distribution of effluent to the distribution system as follows: (g) (i) Each distribution box shall must be designed to split the effluent flow equally among the effluent ports. All The effluent ports shall must be: Sec. 67. (a) Piping used in a residential on-site sewage system shall must meet or exceed the following applicable standards: (b) Gasketed compression-type joints Upgraded piping must be used on pressure sewers when they are located ten (10) feet or less from a water line do not meet the required horizontal and vertical separations required in section 57(e) of this rule. (c) Soil absorption system gravity distribution laterals shall must meet one (1) of the following standards: (d) Gravity distribution laterals shall must have two (2) or three (3) rows of holes separated by one hundred twenty (120) degrees, with a five-eighths (⅝) inch or three-quarters (¾) inch hole diameter with holes spaced at five (5) inches or less. (e) Pipe for subsurface drainage systems shall must meet the following standards for polyethylene pipe: Sec. 68. (a) Aggregate to be used in soil absorption systems shall must be gravel, stone, or other materials listed by the department. Crushed limestone aggregate, if used, shall must be rated as forty percent (40%) or less on the Los Angeles abrasion quality requirement of the INDOT 2012 2024 Standard Specifications, Section 904, Aggregates. (b) Aggregate must be: (c) Tire chips may be used in place of stone for soil absorption systems on a one-for-one basis, volumetrically. Tire chips used for soil absorption systems must have a nominal size of two (2) inches, with chip dimensions being not less than one-half (½) inch and not greater than four (4) inches. (d) Fines, sand, and clay shall must be removed from the aggregate prior to before its placement in the trench. Sec. 69. (a) The physical characteristics of barrier materials shall must have the following minimum average roll values: (b) The chemical characteristics of barrier materials shall must be: Sec. 70. (a) On-site sewage system feasibility, location, and selection shall must be based on the: If site conditions are acceptable, subsurface trench soil absorption systems are the systems of choice. (b) All of The following site conditions in this section must be met if subsurface trench on-site sewage systems are to be constructed: (c) Subsurface trench soil absorption systems shall must not be constructed as follows: Sec. 71. (a) On-site sewage system feasibility, location, and selection shall must be based on the: (b) A subsurface trench gravity system may be constructed if the: (c) A subsurface trench gravity on-site sewage system may also be constructed if the: (d) A subsurface trench on-site sewage system that utilizes uses alternating fields or is dosed using pump assisted distribution may be constructed if the: (e) If any a soil absorption system, including either half of an alternating field on-site sewage system, is designed with a total absorption trench length greater than five hundred (500) lineal linear feet, the absorption system shall must be dosed using pump assisted distribution. (f) If any a soil horizon within twenty-four (24) inches of the proposed trench bottom has a soil loading rate of one and twenty-hundredths (1.20) gallons per day, per square foot, as determined from Table IV in section 70(b)(8) 70(b)(7) of this rule, the on-site sewage system shall utilize must use pressure distribution. Sec. 72. (a) On-site sewage system feasibility, location, selection, and design shall must be based on the: (b) Elevated sand mound on-site sewage systems may be constructed if the following site conditions are met: (c) Elevated sand mound soil absorption systems shall must not be constructed as follows: Sec. 73. On-site sewage system selection may be summarized in Table VI as follows: Sec. 74. (a) The minimum absorption area, in square feet, required for each subsurface trench soil absorption system shall must be based on the following: (b) The area of the on-site sewage system and dispersal area must be protected from disturbance before, during, and after construction of the system. The local health department may require: (b) (c) Subsurface trench soil absorption systems shall must be as long and narrow as the site permits while not exceeding maximum trench length. (c) All (d) Subsurface trench on-site sewage systems shall must be located in accordance with the separation distances shown in Table I in section 57(a) of this rule. (d) (e) Special caution shall must be taken to prevent wheeled and tracked vehicles from compacting the area selected for placement of the soil absorption system before, during, and after construction of the trenches, especially during wet weather. Alteration of soil structure by movement of vehicles may be grounds for rejection of the site or the soil absorption system, or both. (e) (f) Subsurface soil absorption systems shall must not be constructed during periods of wet weather when the soil is sufficiently wet at the depth of installation to exceed its plastic limit, as follows: (f) (g) Vegetation at the soil absorption system site that would interfere with the soils evaluation, system layout, or system construction shall must be cut and removed prior to before installation without causing compacted soil material. (g) (h) If trees are present within the proposed soil absorption system: (h) (i) Excessive smearing of the usable absorption trench sidewalls or bottom during construction may: (i) The (j) A residential sewer shall must be a minimum of at least four (4) inches in diameter. Four (4) inch sewers shall must be installed with a positive slope of: (j) (k) A six (6) inch residential sewer, if utilized, shall used, must be installed with a positive slope of: (k) (l) A vertical drop may be installed in a residential sewer. Each vertical drop shall must have a cleanout located immediately upslope. (l) (m) Effluent sewers shall must meet the following requirements: (m) All (n) Sewer and effluent sewer joints shall must be sealed according to the manufacturer's recommendations in order to be watertight and to withstand the pressures exerted on them. (n) (o) The absorption trenches of a subsurface trench soil absorption system shall must be constructed along the contour. (o) (p) The minimum depth from original grade to the bottom of a trench of a subsurface trench soil absorption system shall must not be less than ten (10) inches, and the maximum depth from final grade to the bottom of a trench of a subsurface trench soil absorption system shall must not be more than thirty-six (36) inches. (p) All (q) Subsurface trench soil absorption systems shall must be designed to utilize use trenches with a minimum width of eighteen (18) inches and a maximum trench width of thirty-six (36) inches. (q) (r) There shall must be a minimum separation of seven and one-half (7½) feet, on center, between soil absorption system trenches, measured perpendicular to the trenches. (r) (s) No single absorption trench in a subsurface trench soil absorption system shall may exceed one hundred (100) feet in length, except for subsurface trench pressure distribution on-site sewage systems. (s) (t) Each trench and distribution lateral in a subsurface trench soil absorption system shall must be uniformly level throughout its length and width. (t) (u) The distal ends of distribution laterals and trenches shall must not be tied together. (u) (v) The distal end of each distribution lateral shall must be capped, with the cap joint sealed according to the manufacturer's recommendations, in order to be watertight and to withstand the pressures exerted on it. (v) (w) Perforated pipe distribution laterals in the absorption trench of a subsurface trench soil absorption system shall must be completely surrounded by aggregate that meets the specifications in section 68 of this rule. There shall must be at least six (6) inches of aggregate below the pipe. (w) (x) The minimum depth of aggregate above the distribution laterals shall must be: (x) (y) The aggregate used in a subsurface trench soil absorption system shall must be covered with a geotextile fabric barrier in such a manner as to prevent way that prevents the aggregate from becoming clogged with the earth fill. The barrier material shall: must: (y) A minimum of (z) At least twelve (12) inches of cover shall must be provided over the aggregate in the trenches, and any fill required to provide cover shall must be crowned over the entire soil absorption system to promote surface runoff. (z) (aa) Tire chips, if used for aggregate, will have protruding wires and shall must be removed from the ground surface during site cleanup. Sec. 79. (a) The size of the aggregate bed shall must be determined from the following: (b) The aggregate bed shall must be installed on the INDOT Specification 23 sand in the basal area, as listed in Table XV in section 80(j) of this rule. (c) The location of the aggregate bed shall must be: (d) The design of the aggregate bed shall must comply with the following: Sec. 80. (a) The dimensions of the basal area shall must be as long and narrow as the site allows, in compliance with the requirements of subsection (c). (b) Numerical dimensions provided in this section for basal area and elevated sand mound size are rounded up to the nearest whole number. (c) The size of the basal area shall must be determined from the following: (d) The location of the basal area within the elevated sand mound shall must be: (e) The design of the basal area shall must be for: (f) The basal area shall must be constructed on the tilled surface of the soil absorption system site in accordance with the provisions of section 87 of this rule. (g) The long axis of the basal area and elevated sand mound shall must be constructed along the contour of the soil absorption system site. (h) The minimum depth of the INDOT Specification 23 sand under the aggregate bed shall must be twelve (12) inches. (i) The INDOT Specification 23 sand shall must have a minimum final grade on all sides of three-to-one (3:1). (j) The INDOT Specification 23 sand used in the elevated sand mound shall must meet the following standard: (k) Figure 1 in section 79(d) of this rule presents a visual depiction of the location of the basal area within the elevated sand mound. Sec. 81. (a) Numerical dimensions for the soil material cover from the edge of the basal area to the edge of the elevated sand mound are based on a final grade of three-to-one (3:1) (on level sites). The plan views and numerical dimensions are for a simple slope (a slope that forms a plane). Elevated sand mounds sited on complex slopes are more difficult to design and construct on contour. (b) The minimum length of an elevated sand mound shall must be the sum of the following: (c) The minimum width of the elevated sand mound shall must be determined from the following: Sec. 90. (a) The local health department shall issue a permit and require an inspection for the abandonment of an on-site sewage system in accordance with section 53(a)(9) of this rule. (a) (b) When the use of an on-site sewage system is discontinued, the following procedure must be followed for all tanks and electrical service: (b) (c) If there are no plans to use the area for other purposes, the components of the soil absorption system may be left intact. if there are no plans to use the area for other purposes. Vegetative cover must be maintained. (c) (d) If effluent has surfaced, those areas must be covered with hydrated lime followed by top soil and a vegetative cover. (d) (e) If components of the soil absorption system are to be removed, the following procedure must be used: (e) (f) Written documentation of tank pumping and system abandonment must be provided to the local health department by the homeowner in the form of a receipt from the contractor and landfill, if used. Sec. 91. (a) Bulletin S.E. 11, "The Sanitary Vault Privy", 2021 edition, is incorporated by reference as part of this rule. It is available at the Indiana Department at of Health, 2 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204. (b) NSF/ANSI Standard 40-2010 Standards 40-2023 and Standard 46-2010a 46-2020 are incorporated by reference as part of this rule. Two (2) copies of each standard are available for reference in the files of the department. Copies of the standards may be obtained by mailing a request to the National Sanitation Foundation, 789 North Dixboro Road, P.O. Box 130140, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140, or at www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/joint.cgi/nsf. (c) ASTM Standards C 923-08, C 990-09, C 1644-06, C 923-20, C 990-24, C 1116-10a(2015), C 1644-24, D 1785-21a, D 2241-2020, D 2661-2021, D 2665-2020, D 2680-2020, D 2729-2021, D 3034-2021, D 2241-24, D 2661-24, D 2665-24, D 2680-20, D 2729-21, D 3034-24, D 3035-22, D 4355-21, D 4491-2022, D 4533-15, D 4533-15(2023), D 4632-2023, D 4751-21a, D 6241-22a, F 405-05, F 2620-20ae2, F 480-14(2022), F 667-16(2021), and F 810-12 (2018) F 810-12(2024) are incorporated by reference as part of this rule. Two (2) copies of each standard are available for reference in the files of the department. ASTM standards may be obtained at http://www.astm.org/Standard/index.shtml. (d) AASHTO Standard M252-23 is incorporated by reference as part of this rule. Two (2) copies of the standard are available for reference in the files of the department. This standard may be obtained at https://store.transportation.org/Item/PublicationDetail?ID=5093. (e) NRCS Standard 606, July 2022, is incorporated by reference as part of this rule. Two (2) copies of the standard are available for reference in the files of the department. This standard may be obtained at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/guides-and-instructions/subsurface-drain-ft-606-conservation-practice-standard. (f) INDOT 2012 2024 Standard Specifications, Section 904, Aggregates, is incorporated by reference as part of this rule. Two (2) copies of the standard are available for reference in the files of the department. The standard may be obtained at https://www.in.gov/indot/files/2012Master.pdf https://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/standards/book/sep23/2024%20Standard%20Specifications.pdf. (g) NEMA 250-2008 250-2020 is incorporated by reference as part of this rule. Two (2) copies of the standard are available for reference in the files of the department. The standard may be obtained at https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/nema/nema2502008 https://www.nema.org/docs/default-source/standards-document-library/ansi_nema_250-2020-contents-and-scope76f809d7-afad-4aa1-80cd-e1d09b60f2e5.pdf?sfvrsn=cb4086bd_3. (h) IAPMO Z1000-2019, Prefabricated Septic Tanks, is incorporated by reference as part of this rule. Two (2) copies of the standard are available for reference in the files of the department. The standard may be obtained at https://webstore.ansi.org/SDO/IAPMO?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-8P-vZLJ-QIVn8mUCR2xTQxTEAAYASAAEgJ9K_D_BwE. (i) Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys, Second Edition, USDA, 1999 is incorporated by reference as part of this rule. This document may be obtained at https://nrcspad.sc.egov.usda.gov/DistributionCenter/pdf.aspx?productID=703. LSA Document #26-64 Notice of First Public Comment Period: March 11, 2026 Documents Incorporated by Reference: NSF/ANSI Standards 40-2023 and 46-2020; ASTM Standards C 923-20, C 990-24, C 1116-10a(2015), C 1644-24, D 2241-24, D 2661-24, D 2665-24, D 2680-20, D 2729-21, D 3034-24, D 3035-22, D 4533-15(2023), F 2620-20ae2, and F 810-12(2024); INDOT 2024 Standard Specifications, Section 904, Aggregates; NEMA 250-2020; IAPMO Z1000-2019, Prefabricated Septic Tanks; U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Taxonomy, Second Edition, 1999 Small Business Regulatory Coordinator: Z. Claire Dyer, Advisory Chief, Indiana Department of Health, 2 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204, (317) 454-0040, ZDyer@health.in.gov
Documents
- Full text (state register) · July 08, 2026
Don't miss the comment window
One Click Politics alerts you on every deadline, hearing, and rule change.
See all rules with comments due soon →