in-20250903-IR-824240636RAA: 317-232-1360

TITLE 824 INDIANA GRAIN BUYERS AND WAREHOUSE LICENSING AGENCY Readoption Review LSA Document #24-636

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

The Indiana Grain Buyer’s Warehouse Licensing Agency (IGBWLA) still oversees the subject matter of the rules provided in 824 IAC 2. SEA 461 (2025) repealed several administrative rules of this Article effective July 1, 2025; however, the agency continues to have authority over the subject matter, and the authority to adopt administrative rules.

II. Rationale for the Continued Need for the Rule 

The continued need exists for this rule since it provides information and guidance to licensees to ensure compliance with their licensing requirements under IC 26-3-7. The rules are beneficial to outline the required documents for statutory compliance. Many of the rules spell out terms or processes that are necessary based upon the statutory framework.  Without these rules, it would create more staff and licensee time to figure out broad statutory terms and processes.

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

The rules presented for readoption do not contain any fees, fines or civil penalties.

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

The cost of these rules is negligible on all affected parties (the agency, regulated community, businesses, and the public). These rules further expand on several requirements spelled out in Indiana Code 26-3-7. The agency is already and will continue to do regular audits of each licensed entity under its jurisdiction under IC 26-3-7. These rules defined terms and, clarify processes and requirements outlined in IC 26-3-7. For the regulated grain buying community, these rules list the requirements that most grain buyers are following to ensure the safety and efficiency of Indiana’s grain infrastructure. The primary cost burden to the regulated community is in IC 26-3-7 regarding preparation of financials statements, bonding, minimum net worth requirements, and licensing fees and fines, not the rules proposed to be readopted by the agency. Lastly, the public is not affected by these rules, but Indiana’s farmers are protected when they sell their grain because of these rules. Furthermore, changing rules would allow entities to act in a less regulated way when it comes to grain storage, handling, and documentation, which could increase costs to farmers and potential businesses if they chose to change their procedures. The cost impact to farmers would be less recordkeeping which could jeopardize their ability to properly and safely market their grain and ensure they receive payment. These rules are intended as a benefit to farmers via the work of the agency and not readopting could potentially have an indirect cost to farmers when they go to market their grain. These rules will not require regulated parties to buy new equipment or software, will not require more time to complete tasks, and will not require any of the following: hiring new workers, conducting new training, developing new procedures, or taking additional actions to comply. Not having the regulation in effect could decrease profitability of farmers (and licensees who do business with other licensees) if records are not kept and maintained according to these rules. In conclusion, these rules and regulations will not have a substantial cost impact but if not re-adopted, they could have a substantial cost impact on those affected in the farming community when they sell their grain in Indiana. IV. Alternative Methods of Achieving the Purpose of the Rule No alternative methods exist since the rules are an industry standard as far as the issuance of warehouse receipts and scale tickets. Changing the method or process may potentially increase the expense of a small business due to staff time or technology costs to make the changes. For rules relating to procedures for grain shortages, claims, or license revocation, they provide detailed information on the steps that are outlined in statute. VI. Complaints and Comments IGBWLA has not received any complaints or comments regarding these rules. Many of these rules have been readopted numerous times with support from several of the groups representing the agriculture industry in Indiana. VII. Difficulties Encountered  IGBWLA has not encountered any difficulties in administering the proposed readopted rules and has not received any notice of difficulties from a regulated party. VIII. Changes in Technology, Economic Conditions, or Other Factors  There have been advances in technology since the last re-adoption, however the agriculture industry and the agency’s licensees, for the most part, have been slow to adopt. Most have moved to electronic record keeping, but some licensees still use paper records and provide paper warehouse receipts. Updates to technology would have a minimal impact on the ability or financial ability of licensees to comply with the proposed rule readoptions. IX. Other State or Federal Requirements IGBWLA reviewed the required six states (IL, KY, MI, OH, ID, and SD) and Indiana’s rules are comparable to those states’ grain buyers and warehouse licensing regulations. All states follow similar procedures for licensing requirements, auditing, as well as warehouse receipts, scale tickets and accounting principles. Any differences in claims processing and payment to producers are the result of different statutory frameworks, not more restrictive administrative rules. Since Indiana’s bonding, minimum net worth, asset to liability ratio and fees, fines and civil penalties are all in statute, there were no burdens to compare those regulations to other states. One area in rule that Indiana was more restrictive was the requirement for licensees to post charts and diagrams in addition to their license; however, this requirement is based on the statutory requirement for all three items. In reviewing other state’s regulations, Indiana’s regulations were more narrowly tailored and provide better guidance to licensees than broad/discretionary terms that were commonly used in other states.