This letter from Matthew Morgan of Barnes & Thornburg LLP identifies four options for addressing ambiguities and gaps in the Indiana Code that affect the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles' ability to operate. The options include working with the Indiana General Assembly to amend the Code, promulgating administrative rules, publishing interpretive guidelines, or continuing current operations. The letter notes that determining the appropriate option requires assessing specific Code issues and is not intended as legal advice.

1. 11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535
317-236-1313
317-231-7433 (Fax)
www.btlaw.com
Matthew E. Morgan
(317) 231-6421
Matthew.Morgan@BTLaw.com
April 29, 2015
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles
Attn: Patrick Price, General Counsel
100 North Senate Avenue, Room 404
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Dear Mr. Price:
This letter does not constitute legal advice between the law firm of Barnes & Thornburg LLP and
the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (the “Bureau”). We offer this letter for the limited purpose of
identifying certain options that are available to address certain limitations on the guidance currently
available in the Indiana Code.
Both the Bureau and Barnes & Thornburg have identified ambiguities and gaps in the Indiana
Code that may affect the Bureau’s ability to operate. Operating under laws that do not provide clear
direction on how to classify vehicles and charge customers creates unfortunate risks for the Bureau and
the citizens of Indiana.
At your request, we have identified four non-mutually exclusive options for addressing these
circumstances:
(1) work with the Indiana General Assembly to amend or rewrite the Indiana Code to clarify
existing law;
(2) promulgate administrative rules “necessary to carry out” the Bureau’s work, as
appropriate, See IND. CODE § 9-14-2-2(a);
(3) publish guidelines that announce and explain the Bureau’s interpretations where the Code
is imprecise or fails to address issues essential to operations; or
(4) continue to operate under the Indiana Code as written.
Which options are legally and practically appropriate to address specific ambiguities or gaps in
the Code can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. Nonetheless, we hope this letter assists the
Bureau’s assessment of how to proceed.
Sincerely,
Matthew E. Morgan