Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 4-22-2-13 (2026)

Application of chapter

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 13. (a) Subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d), this chapter applies to the addition, amendment, or repeal of a rule in every rulemaking action.

     (b) This chapter does not apply to the following agencies:

(1) Any military officer or board.

(2) Any state educational institution.

     (c) This chapter does not apply to a rulemaking action that results in any of the following rules:

(1) A resolution or directive of any agency that relates solely to internal policy, internal agency organization, or internal procedure and does not have the effect of law.

(2) A restriction or traffic control determination of a purely local nature that:

(A) is ordered by the commissioner of the Indiana department of transportation;

(B) is adopted under IC 9-20-1-3(d), IC 9-21-4-7, or IC 9-20-7; and

(C) applies only to one (1) or more particularly described intersections, highway portions, bridge causeways, or viaduct areas.

(3) A rule adopted by the secretary of state under IC 26-1-9.1-526.

(4) An executive order or proclamation issued by the governor.

(5) A rule adopted by the board of trustees of the Indiana public retirement system, as provided in IC 5-10.5-4-2. However, the board shall submit rules adopted by the board to the publisher for publication in the Indiana Register.

     (d) Except as specifically set forth in IC 13-14-9:

(1) IC 13-14-9 provides supplemental procedures for notice and public comment concerning proposed rules for the boards listed in IC 13-14-9-1; and

(2) the department of environmental management and the boards listed in IC 13-14-9-1 shall comply with the procedures in IC 13-14-9 in lieu of complying with sections 26, 27, and 29 (except section 29(c)) of this chapter.

In adopting rules, all other provisions of IC 4-22-2 apply to these agencies.

As added by P.L.31-1985, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.18-1990, SEC.8; P.L.2-1991, SEC.21; P.L.34-1993, SEC.1; P.L.44-1995, SEC.1; P.L.1-1996, SEC.28; P.L.57-2000, SEC.1; P.L.2-2007, SEC.52; P.L.249-2023, SEC.9.

 

Notes of Decisions
Roy Lee Ward v. Robert E. Carter, Jr., Comm'r of the Indiana Dep't of Corr., & Ron Neal, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, In Their Off. Capacities, 90 N.E.3d 660 (Ind. 2018). · cites it 5× “Ind. Code § 4-22-2-13 (a) (2012 Repl.). ARPA, however, does not apply to "[a] resolution or directive of any agency that relates solely to internal policy, internal agency organization, or internal procedure and does not have the effect of law.”
Little Beverage Co., Inc. v. DePrez, 777 N.E.2d 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Ind.Code §§ 4-22-2-13, -23, -24 (2002). The notice must set forth specific information as required by statute.”
Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. v. Twin Eagle LLC, 798 N.E.2d 839 (Ind. 2003). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 4-22-2-13(c)(1) (1998); AMAX, Inc.”
S.S. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 941 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] While, as noted below, the DWD is exempt from the procedural requirements of the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act ("AOPA"), Indiana Code article 4-21.”
Villegas v. Silverman, 832 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “2d at 780; see also Ind.Code § 4-22-2-13(c)(1) ("This chapter does not apply to a rulemaking action that results in any of the following rules: (1) A resolution or directive of any agency that relates solely to internal policy, internal ageney organization, or internal procedure…”
The Pantry, Inc. v. Stop-N-Go Foods, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 713 (S.D. Ind. 1991). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 4-22-2-13(a) (Supp.1991). If a state agency wishes to promulgate an enforceable “rule,” the agency must (1) notify the public of a public hearing regarding the proposed rule, Ind.”
Conquest v. State Emp.'s Appeals Com'n, 565 N.E.2d 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “2d 1209, 1212 ; I.C. § 4-22-2-13. Here, the home visit policy directly impacts upon parole agents' conduct.”
Roy Lee Ward v. Robert E. Carter, Jr., Comm'r of the Indiana Dep't of Corr., & Ron Neal, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, in their Off. capacities, 79 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 4-22-2-13(c)(1). To enforce compliance, ARPA creates individual rights in the administrative procedure, voids the legality óf unlawfully adopted agency rules, and provides a cause of action in the instance a state agency violates the law’s provisions.”
Conquest v. State Employees' Appeals Comm'n, 565 N.E.2d 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “2d 1209, 1212 ; I.C. § 4-22-2-13. Here, the home visit policy directly impacts upon parole agents’ conduct.”
Hamilton Se. Utils., Inc. v. Indiana Util. Regulatory Comm'n (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “I.C. § 4-22-2-13(a); see also Ward v. Carter, 90 N.”
Ratulowski v. PNC Bank, N.A. (N.D. Ind. 2023). · cites it 3× “See Ind. Code § 4-22-2-13 (c)(1). If, instead, these materials are properly construed as the Department of Financial Institutions’ formal statement of policy applicable to all GAP agreements offered in Indiana under the 2015 vintage of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, the…”
Ratulowski v. PNC Bank, N.A. (N.D. Ind. 2024). · cites it 2× “at 20 (citing Ind. Code § 4-22-2-13 - (c)(1)). So that theory was a non-starter.”
— Ind. Code § 4-22-2-13(a) — 2 cases
The Pantry, Inc. v. Stop-N-Go Foods, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 713 (S.D. Ind. 1991). “Ind.Code § 4-22-2-13(a) (Supp.1991). If a state agency wishes to promulgate an enforceable “rule,” the agency must (1) notify the public of a public hearing regarding the proposed rule, Ind.”
Hamilton Se. Utils., Inc. v. Indiana Util. Regulatory Comm'n (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “I.C. § 4-22-2-13(a); see also Ward v. Carter, 90 N.”
— Ind. Code § 4-22-2-13(c) — 1 case
Hamilton Se. Utils., Inc. v. Indiana Util. Regulatory Comm'n (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “I.C. § 4-22-2-13(a); see also Ward v. Carter, 90 N.”
— Ind. Code § 4-22-2-13(c)(1) — 5 cases
Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. v. Twin Eagle LLC, 798 N.E.2d 839 (Ind. 2003). “I.C. § 4-22-2-13(c)(1) (1998); AMAX, Inc.”
Roy Lee Ward v. Robert E. Carter, Jr., Comm'r of the Indiana Dep't of Corr., & Ron Neal, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, In Their Off. Capacities, 90 N.E.3d 660 (Ind. 2018). “Ind. Code § 4-22-2-13 (a) (2012 Repl.). ARPA, however, does not apply to "[a] resolution or directive of any agency that relates solely to internal policy, internal agency organization, or internal procedure and does not have the effect of law.”
Villegas v. Silverman, 832 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “2d at 780; see also Ind.Code § 4-22-2-13(c)(1) ("This chapter does not apply to a rulemaking action that results in any of the following rules: (1) A resolution or directive of any agency that relates solely to internal policy, internal ageney organization, or internal procedure…”
Roy Lee Ward v. Robert E. Carter, Jr., Comm'r of the Indiana Dep't of Corr., & Ron Neal, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, in their Off. capacities, 79 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “” I.C. § 4-22-2-13(c)(1). To enforce compliance, ARPA creates individual rights in the administrative procedure, voids the legality óf unlawfully adopted agency rules, and provides a cause of action in the instance a state agency violates the law’s provisions.”
Ratulowski v. PNC Bank, N.A. (N.D. Ind. 2023). “See Ind. Code § 4-22-2-13 (c)(1). If, instead, these materials are properly construed as the Department of Financial Institutions’ formal statement of policy applicable to all GAP agreements offered in Indiana under the 2015 vintage of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, the…”
— Ind. Code § 4-22-2-13(c)(l) — 1 case
Martin v. Carraway, 712 N.E.2d 1055 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
— Ind. Code § 4-22-2-13(d) — 1 case
Hamilton Se. Utils., Inc. v. Indiana Util. Regulatory Comm'n (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “I.C. § 4-22-2-13(a); see also Ward v. Carter, 90 N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.