in-20250903-IR-105240645RAA: __________________________________________________

TITLE 105 INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Readoption Analysis and Written Findings LSA Document #24-645 I. Statement Whether the Subject Matter Covered by the Rule Remains Carried Out by the Agency II. Continued Need for the Rule III. Analysis of Fines, Fees, and Civil Penalties under IC 4-22-2-19.6 IV. Cost-Benefit, Economic Impact, Fiscal Impact, or Regulatory Burden Statements V. Alternative Methods of Achieving the Purpose of the Rule VI. Complaints and Comments VII. Difficulties Encountered VIII. Changes in Technology, Economic Conditions or other Factors IX. Other State or Federal Requirements X. Previous Amendments XI. Integration Into Indiana Code XII. Contact Information of Staff to Answer Substantive Questions __________________________________________________ I. Statement Whether the Subject Matter Covered by the Rule Remains Carried Out by the Agency II. Rationale for the Continued Need for the Rule III. Analysis of fees, fines, and civil penalties under IC 4-22-2-19.6 IV. Cost-Benefit, Economic Impact, Fiscal Impact, or Regulatory Burden Statements V. Alternative Methods of Achieving the Purpose of the Rule VI Complaints and Comments VII. Difficulties Encountered VIII. Changes in Technology, Economic Conditions, or Other Factors IX. Other State or Federal Requirements

III. Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties

The readopted version of 105 IAC 7-1, excluding 105 IAC 7-1-4 and 105 IAC 7-1-5, does not introduce or increase any fees, fines, or civil penalties.

IX. Comparison with Other States

A multistate comparison reveals that while Indiana’s approach is consistent with national norms, other states—including Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and South Dakota—tend to employ more prescriptive or restrictive access management regulations, particularly in the following areas: These differences suggest that Indiana’s approach, while effective, remains less prescriptive and more flexible in application. Additional Information on State Comparison’s The following is a comparison of 105 IAC 7-1 to laws and codes in other states. While many Standards and Specifications are similar to or the same in Indiana as other states, this comparison was based only on requirements outlined in this rule and other states laws and codes. When comparing Indiana’s 105 IAC 7-1 (Driveway Access Permits) with Idaho’s IDAPA 39.03.42 (Rules Governing Highway Right-of-Way Encroachments), Idaho's regulations are generally more restrictive and prescriptive in some key areas. Overview: Feature Idaho (IDAPA 39.03.42) Indiana (105 IAC 7-1) Permit Requirement Required for any new, modified, or relocated access, including driveways, utilities, and landscaping within the right-of-way. Requires permits for any work within the state highway right-of-way, including driveway approaches and other construction activities. Access Spacing Standards Detailed spacing requirements based on highway type and area; e.g., minimum 500 feet from a signalized intersection for unrestricted driveways. Has spacing standards, with minimum separations between driveways and from intersecting streets, varying based on the type of road and location. Design Standards Comprehensive design criteria, including sight distance, driveway width, and approach angles. Requires applications to be accompanied by clear drawings showing detailed design criteria, including dimensions, slope or grade, pavement material, drainage patterns, and sight distances. Joint-Use Driveways Allowed with a legally recorded joint-use access agreement signed by all property owners. Encourages joint-use drives where practical and agreeable to property owners, with the centerline typically located on the property line. Permit Duration Encroachment permits are valid for up to one calendar year and must be removed within ten days following expiration. Permits are valid for one year and can be extended for an additional year. If a permit is canceled, a new application is required. Once construction starts, it must be completed within 30 days unless a special condition is approved. Enforcement and Penalties Strict enforcement with potential for permit revocation and requirements to restore the right-of-way to its original condition. Includes provisions for revoking permits in cases of noncompliance. Noncompliance with permit requirements can lead to corrective action by the department, with costs borne by the property owner.. Conclusion Idaho's regulations under IDAPA 39.03.42 are marginally more restrictive and compared to Indiana's 105 IAC 7-1. While many Standards and Specifications are similar or the same in Indiana as Idaho, Idaho regulations provide specific standards for access spacing, design, and joint-use agreements, along with defined permit durations and enforcement provisions. When comparing Indiana’s 105 IAC 7-1 (Driveway Access Permits) with Illinois’ 92 Ill. Adm. Code Part 550 (Policy on Permits for Access Driveways to State Highways), Illinois' regulations are generally more restrictive and detailed. Overview: Feature Illinois (92 Ill. Adm. Code Part 550) Indiana(105 IAC 7-1) Permit Requirement Required for any new, modified, or relocated access, including driveways, utilities, and landscaping within the right-of-way. Requires permits for work within the state highway right-of-way, including driveway approaches and other construction activities. The purpose is to ensure drainage, highway preservation, and traffic safety. Access Spacing Standards Detailed spacing requirements based on highway type and area; e.g., minimum 500 feet from a signalized intersection for unrestricted driveways. Includes provisions regarding distances to intersecting roads and other drives within a certain radius. Spacing standards are important for safety and traffic flow. 105 IAC 7-1-17 specifically addresses sight distances. Design Standards Comprehensive design criteria, including sight distance, driveway width, and approach angles. Requires applications to include drawings detailing design elements such as dimensions, slope, drainage patterns, and sight distance. Joint-Use Driveways Allowed with a legally recorded joint-use access agreement signed by all property owners. Encourages joint-use drives where practical and agreeable to property owners. Permit Duration Encroachment permits are valid for up to one calendar year and must be removed within ten days following expiration. Permits are valid for one year and can be extended for an additional year. Construction must be initiated within that year and completed within 30 days unless a special condition is approved. If a permit is canceled, a new application is required before work can commence. Enforcement and Penalties Strict enforcement with potential for permit revocation and requirements to restore the right-of-way to its original condition. Includes provisions for revoking permits in cases of noncompliance. Noncompliance with permit requirements can lead to corrective action by the department, with costs borne by the property owner. Conclusion Illinois' regulations under 92 Ill. Adm. Code Part 550 are more restrictive and detailed compared to Indiana's 105 IAC 7-1. While many Standards and Specifications are similar or the same in Indiana as Illinois, Illinois code provides specific standards for access spacing, design, and joint-use agreements, along with defined permit durations and enforcement provisions. When comparing Indiana’s 105 IAC 7-1 (Driveway Access Permits) with Kentucky’s access management regulations, Kentucky's approach is generally more restrictive and comprehensive. Overview: Feature Kentucky (KRS 177.106; 603 KAR 5:120) Indiana (105 IAC 7-1) Permit Requirement Required for any new, modified, or relocated access, including driveways, utilities, and landscaping within the right-of-way. Requires permits for work in the state highway right-of-way, including driveway approaches, utility installations, and other construction activities. Access Spacing Standards Detailed spacing requirements based on highway type and area; e.g., minimum distances from intersections for driveways. Has spacing standards, with minimum separations between driveways and from intersecting streets, varying based on the type of road and location. Design Standards Comprehensive design criteria, including sight distance, driveway width, and approach angles. Requires applications to be accompanied by clear drawings showing detailed design criteria, including dimensions, slope or grade, pavement material, drainage patterns, and sight distances. Joint-Use Driveways Allowed with a legally recorded joint-use access agreement signed by all property owners. Encourages joint-use drives where practical and agreeable to property owners, with the centerline typically located on the property line. Permit Duration Encroachment permits are valid for up to one calendar year and must be removed within ten days following expiration. Permits are valid for one year and can be extended for an additional year. Construction must start within that year and be completed within 30 days unless a special condition is approved. If a permit is canceled, a new application is required before work can commence Enforcement and Penalties Strict enforcement with potential for permit revocation and requirements to restore the right-of-way to its original condition. Includes provisions for revoking permits in cases of noncompliance. Noncompliance with permit requirements can lead to corrective action by the department, with costs borne by the property owner. Conclusion Kentucky's regulations under KRS 177.106 and 603 KAR 5:120 are more restrictive and detailed compared to Indiana's 105 IAC 7-1. While many Standards and Specifications are similar or the same in Indiana as Kentucky, Kentucky law provides specific standards for access spacing, design, and joint-use agreements, along with defined permit durations and enforcement provisions that are not detailed in 105 IAC 7-1. When comparing Indiana’s 105 IAC 7-1 (Driveway Access Permits) with Michigan’s regulations governing driveway access to state highways, Michigan's approach is generally more restrictive and comprehensive. Overview: Feature Michigan (Act 200 of 1969 and Mich. Admin. Code R. 247) Indiana (105 IAC 7-1) Permit Requirement Required for any new, modified, or relocated access, including driveways, utilities, and landscaping within the right-of-way. Requires permits for any work within the state highway right-of-way, including driveway approaches and other construction activities. Access Spacing Standards Detailed spacing requirements based on highway type and area; e.g., minimum distances from intersections for driveways. Has spacing standards, with minimum separations between driveways and from intersecting streets, varying based on the type of road and location. Design Standards Comprehensive design criteria, including sight distance, driveway width, and approach angles. Requires applications to be accompanied by clear drawings showing detailed design criteria, including dimensions, slope or grade, pavement material, drainage patterns, and sight distances. Joint-Use Driveways Allowed with a legally recorded joint-use access agreement signed by all property owners. Encourages joint-use driveways where practical and agreeable to property owners. Permit Duration Encroachment permits are valid for up to one calendar year and must be removed within ten days following expiration. Permits are valid for one year and can be extended for an additional year. Construction must start within that year and be completed within 30 days unless a special condition is approved. Enforcement and Penalties Strict enforcement with potential for permit revocation and requirements to restore the right-of-way to its original condition. Includes provisions for revoking permits in cases of noncompliance. Noncompliance can also lead to corrective action by the department, with costs borne by the property owner. Conclusion Michigan's regulations under Act 200 of 1969 and Mich. Admin. Code R. 247 are more restrictive and detailed compared to Indiana's 105 IAC 7-1. While many Standards and Specifications are similar or the same in Indiana as Michigan, Michigan’s laws and codes provide more specific standards for access spacing, design, and joint-use agreements, along with defined permit durations and enforcement provisions. When comparing Indiana’s 105 IAC 7-1 (Driveway Access Permits) with Ohio's statutory and administrative provisions, Ohio's approach is generally more restrictive and comprehensive. Overview: Feature Ohio (ORC and OAC Provisions) Indiana (105 IAC 7-1) Permit Requirement Required for any new, modified, or relocated access, including driveways, utilities, and landscaping within the right-of-way. Requires permits for work in the state highway right-of-way, including driveway approaches and other construction activities. Access Spacing Standards Detailed spacing requirements based on highway type and area; e.g., minimum distances from intersections for driveways. Has spacing standards, with minimum separations between driveways and from intersecting streets, varying based on the type of road and location. Design Standards Comprehensive design criteria, including sight distance, driveway width, and approach angles. Requires applications to be accompanied by clear drawings showing detailed design criteria, including dimensions, slope or grade, pavement material, drainage patterns, and sight distances. Joint-Use Driveways Allowed with a legally recorded joint-use access agreement signed by all property owners. Encourages joint-use drives where practical and agreeable to property owners. Permit Duration Encroachment permits are valid for up to one calendar year and must be removed within ten days following expiration. Permits are valid for one year and can be extended for an additional year. Construction must start within that year and be completed within 30 days unless a special condition is approved. If a permit is cancelled, a new application is required before work can commence. Enforcement and Penalties Strict enforcement with potential for permit revocation and requirements to restore the right-of-way to its original condition. Includes provisions for revoking permits in cases of noncompliance. Noncompliance can also lead to corrective action by the department, with costs borne by the property owner. Conclusion: Ohio's regulations, as outlined in the Ohio Revised Code and related administrative provisions, are more restrictive and detailed compared to Indiana's 105 IAC 7-1. While many Standards and Specifications are similar to or the same in Indiana as Ohio, Ohio law provides specific standards for access spacing, design, and joint-use agreements, along with defined permit durations and enforcement provisions. When comparing Indiana’s 105 IAC 7-1 (Driveway Access Permits) with South Dakota’s Administrative Rule 70:09 (Access Management), South Dakota's regulations are generally more restrictive and comprehensive. Overview: Feature South Dakota (ARSD 70:09) Indiana (105 IAC 7-1) Permit Requirement Required for any new, modified, or relocated access, including driveways, utilities, and landscaping within the right-of-way. Requires permits for work in the state highway right-of-way, including driveway approaches and other construction activities. The purpose is to ensure drainage, highway preservation, and traffic safety. Access Spacing Standards Detailed spacing requirements based on highway type and area; e.g., minimum distances from intersections for driveways. Includes provisions regarding distances to intersecting roads and other drives within a certain radius. Spacing standards are important for safety and traffic flow. Design Standards Comprehensive design criteria, including sight distance, driveway width, and approach angles. Requires applications to include drawings detailing design elements such as dimensions, slope, drainage patterns, and sight distance. Joint-Use Driveways Allowed with a legally recorded joint-use access agreement signed by all property owners. Encourages joint-use drives where practical and agreeable to property owners. Permit Duration Encroachment permits are valid for up to one calendar year and must be removed within ten days following expiration. Permits are valid for one year and can be extended for an additional year. Construction must be initiated within that year and completed within 30 days unless a special condition is approved. If a permit is canceled, a new application is required before work can commence. Enforcement and Penalties Strict enforcement with potential for permit revocation and requirements to restore the right-of-way to its original condition. Includes provisions for revoking permits in cases of noncompliance. Noncompliance can also lead to corrective action by the department, with costs borne by the property owner. Conclusion: South Dakota's regulations under ARSD 70:09 are more restrictive and detailed compared to Indiana's 105 IAC 7-1. While many Standards and Specifications are similar to or the same in Indiana as South Dakota, South Dakota law provides specific standards for access spacing, design, and joint-use agreements, along with defined permit durations and enforcement provisions.

XI. Statutory Authority and Integration

This rule is supported by IC 8-23-6 and IC 9-21-19-2. Its continued placement in administrative code—rather than in statute—preserves INDOT’s ability to respond to evolving safety, engineering, and stakeholder needs without the delays inherent in statutory amendment processes.

XII. Contact for Questions

Monica Hartke-Tarr State Permit Executive Indiana Department of Transportation 317-471-7139 MHartkeTarr@indot.IN.gov _________________________ 1 This readoption excludes 105 IAC 7-1-4 and 105 IAC 7-1-5. __________________________________________________ I. Statement Whether the Subject Matter Covered by the Rule Remains Carried Out by the Agency II. Rationale for the Continued Need for the Rule III. Analysis of fees, fines, and civil penalties under IC 4-22-2-19.6 IV. Cost-Benefit, Economic Impact, Fiscal Impact, or Regulatory Burden Statements V. Alternative Methods of Achieving the Purpose of the Rule VI. Complaints and Comments VII. Difficulties Encountered VIII. Changes in Technology, Economic Conditions, or Other Factors IX. Other State or Federal Requirements X. Previous Amendments XI. Integration into Indiana Code XII. Contact Information of Staff to Answer Substantive Questions __________________________________________________

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

The Indiana Department of Transportation (“INDOT”) proposes the readoption of 105 IAC 7-2, which governs unauthorized approaches to state highways. Pursuant to IC 9-21-19-2, INDOT is authorized to adopt rules to ensure the proper drainage and preservation of state highways and to promote the safety and convenience of public travel. Rule 2 provides the procedures and priorities for identifying and addressing unauthorized driveway connections to INDOT-maintained rights-of-way.

II. Continued Need for the Rule

105 IAC 7-2 remains essential to INDOT’s mission of ensuring highway safety, integrity, and orderly access. The rule establishes a transparent, enforceable process for managing unauthorized or unsafe driveways and supports consistent access management statewide. INDOT recommends its readoption without change based on the following justifications: Key Benefits of Readoption:

V. Alternatives Considered

No alternative regulatory approach would achieve the public safety, operational, and access management goals of 105 IAC 7-2 with fewer burdens or lower cost. Full statutory codification would limit INDOT’s flexibility to respond to evolving access management needs. The legislature delegated authority to promulgate rules to INDOT. Rules can be more detailed than statute, and INDOT, with its expertise, is better equipped than the legislature to promulgate and enforce the rules; this is especially true when dealing with infrastructure as it requires highly specialized knowledge. Rules allow the legislature to focus on general goals and requirements while delegating the specifics, including enforcement, to agencies. Also, when a change is needed, the rule process is flexible and transparent.

VI. Public Feedback

No complaints or concerns have been received from the public, including small businesses, regarding this rule since its last readoption.

VII. Implementation Challenges

INDOT has experienced no difficulties in administering this rule. The regulatory framework continues to function effectively, with positive stakeholder engagement and voluntary compliance.

VIII. Changes in Conditions

There have been no relevant technological, economic, or legal changes that would necessitate amendments to this rule.

IX. Consistency with Other State and Federal Standards

105 IAC 7-2 is consistent with access control policies in peer states. A comparative summary includes: State Regulation Comparison Idaho IDAPA 39.03.42 Requires permits; authorizes correction of unauthorized access. Illinois 92 Ill. Adm. Code 550.20; 605 ILCS 5/4-209 Requires permits; provides for enforcement against unauthorized access. Kentucky 603 KAR 1:020 Requires permitting and design compliance. Michigan Act 200 of 1969 Requires permitting; allows cost recovery and enforcement for unauthorized access. Ohio ORC Section 5515.01 Requires permits; includes provisions for revocation and enforcement. South Dakota SDCL Section 31-24-6 Requires permits; Indiana provides more procedural clarity. Indiana’s regulation is neither unusually restrictive nor lacking in clarity when compared nationally. In some cases, it offers stronger procedural protections and greater enforcement consistency. X. Prior Amendments and Readoptions XI. Statutory Authority XII. Contact for Further Information __________________________________________________

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

In accordance with IC 8-23-20-25, the Indiana Department of Transportation (“INDOT”) is required to implement a permit system to regulate the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs. This system must comply with federal requirements under 23 U.S.C. §131 and 23 C.F.R. Part 750. INDOT continues to fulfill this statutory obligation under 105 IAC 7-4.2

II. Rationale for the Continued Need for the Rule

105 IAC 7-4 outlines the process for obtaining outdoor advertising permits, including application standards, permit denial and appeals, structure specifications, location restrictions, and procedures for relinquishing sign control. This rule remains essential for: Additionally, failure to maintain effective control of outdoor advertising could result in the loss of up to 10% of Indiana’s federal highway funding. Key Benefits:

III. Analysis of Fees, Fines, and Civil Penalties

IC 8-23-20-25(f) authorizes permit fees related to the control of outdoor advertising. Rule 4 does not introduce or increase any fees, fines, or civil penalties.

IV. Fiscal and Economic Impact

INDOT has reviewed the fiscal, economic, and regulatory burden statements prepared by INDOT when Rule 4 was adopted and has found no statements to be in need of revision due to changed circumstances.

VI. Complaints and Comments

INDOT has not received any complaints or public comments, including those from small businesses, regarding Rule 4.

VII. Difficulties Encountered

INDOT has not encountered difficulties administering this rule, nor have any regulated entities reported concerns with its application.

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

There have been no technological, economic, or contextual changes that would necessitate revisions to Rule 4.

IX. Other State or Federal Requirements

Federal regulations (23 U.S.C. §131 and 23 C.F.R. Part 750) require states to control outdoor advertising in areas adjacent to interstate and primary highway systems. Rule 4 ensures Indiana’s continued compliance, helping avoid potential federal funding penalties. These standards articulate the statutory requirements of effective control, succinctly outline the administrative and regulatory responsibilities of the State, and provide pragmatic definitions necessary for rule implementation. In response to 23 USC 131 and 23 CFR 750 (including the potential loss of 10% of federal funding for failure to impose effective control), the States of Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and South Dakota have promulgated analogous laws and codes to ensure adherence to the Federal standards. Comparable regulations in other states include: Each state’s laws are substantively similar and equally or more restrictive than Indiana’s Rule 4.

XI. Integration into Indiana Code

Per IC 8-23-2-6(a)(11), INDOT is authorized to adopt rules necessary to fulfill its responsibilities. Maintaining this rule outside of Indiana Code allows for timely updates in response to evolving legal, operational, or stakeholder needs. Full codification would reduce flexibility and responsiveness.

XII. Contact Information of Staff to Answer Substantive Questions

Monica Hartke-Tarr State Permit Executive Indiana Department of Transportation 317-471-7139 MHartkeTarr@indot.IN.gov _________________________ 2 Sections 2, 13,15, and 25 of 105 IAC 7-4 have expired and therefore are not part of this readoption. __________________________________________________ III. Statement Whether the Subject Matter Covered by the Rule Remains Carried Out by the Agency IV. Rationale for the Continued Need for the Rule III. Analysis of fees, fines, and civil penalties under IC 4-22-2-19.6 IV. Cost-Benefit, Economic Impact, Fiscal Impact, or Regulatory Burden Statements Subtotal Est. Amount from Small Businesses • Participation fees from 54 newly eligible businesses: $237,600 $225,720 • Proof of payment from businesses with delinquent sales tax debts: $140 $140 • Record keeping costs for 54 newly eligible businesses: $3,780 $3,591 Total: $241,520 $229,451