"Red Tape Rollback Act of 2025"; enact
SB 28, titled the “Red Tape Rollback Act of 2025,” is a broad regulatory reform bill aimed at reducing the perceived burden of state legislation and administrative rules on businesses and other regulated parties. It creates a new process for requesting and publishing “small business impact analyses” for bills, defining small business as an independently owned and operated business with 300 or fewer employees. Those analyses must estimate costs and benefits to small businesses, be posted publicly, and be attached to bills for reading before final votes. The bill also allows revisions to those analyses when bills are amended and permits the Office of Planning and Budget and the Department of Audits and Accounts to use outside contractors to prepare them.
The bill substantially revises Georgia’s administrative rulemaking procedures in Title 50. It increases economic-analysis requirements for proposed rules expected to impose at least $3 million in five-year implementation and compliance costs, expands legislative review and objection procedures, and changes when rules become effective. For rules requiring an economic impact analysis, the bill bars filing with the Secretary of State until legislative ratification occurs. It also adds a four-year automatic review cycle for agency rules, including a requirement that rules be analyzed, publicly reported, and subject to hearings, with automatic repeal at the end of the review year unless continued or repromulgated. Similar review and repeal provisions are extended to constitutional officers and their agencies, while certain agencies and emergency rules are treated differently.
The bill further amends Department of Community Health rulemaking procedures and related provisions to strengthen legislative oversight of rules, including objection and override mechanisms. It also revises the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act’s effective-date rules so that, except for emergency rules, adopted rules generally become effective on a semiannual schedule rather than 20 days after filing. The bill includes a delayed effective date for the new rule-review section, which is set to begin in 2027, with the first review cycle in 2028.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history suggests support within the Senate for the substitute version of the bill, which passed 33-21 after an amendment passed 32-22. The vote pattern indicates the measure was politically significant and not unanimous, with a clear majority favoring the bill but a substantial minority opposed. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee arguments beyond the votes themselves.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s expansion of legislative control over agency rulemaking, the automatic repeal and ratification requirements for rules, and the added procedural burdens on agencies. Supporters would likely view the bill as a transparency and deregulation measure that reduces red tape and protects small businesses and nonprofits from costly rules. Opponents would likely argue that it slows or complicates agency action, shifts power away from executive agencies, and could create uncertainty by making rules contingent on legislative review and periodic reauthorization.
SB 28 would significantly amend Georgia law governing legislative fiscal analysis and administrative rulemaking. It adds a new statutory framework in Title 28 for small business impact analyses, revises Title 50’s rulemaking procedures to require more detailed economic analysis and legislative review for certain rules, changes the effective date structure for adopted rules, and creates a recurring four-year review-and-repromulgation process with automatic repeal for agency rules and constitutional officer rules unless they are affirmatively continued. It also modifies Department of Community Health rulemaking procedures and related provisions in the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, affecting agencies, constitutional officers, the Secretary of State, the Office of Planning and Budget, the Department of Audits and Accounts, and the General Assembly’s oversight committees.
The available voting history indicates generally favorable sentiment among supporters, with the Senate approving the substitute version and an amendment by majority vote. The bill’s title and structure suggest it was framed as a deregulatory and pro-small-business measure, which likely drove support from lawmakers favoring reduced regulatory burdens and stronger legislative oversight. At the same time, the nontrivial number of nays shows meaningful opposition, consistent with concerns about increased procedural complexity and constraints on agency rulemaking.
The central controversy is the bill’s shift in power from agencies to the legislature and its automatic repeal mechanism for rules. Supporters likely argue that agencies should justify rules through economic analysis, public input, and periodic review, especially where small businesses face compliance costs. Opponents are likely to object that the bill could delay necessary regulations, create administrative uncertainty, and make it harder for agencies to respond quickly to changing conditions, even though emergency-rule exceptions remain. The bill also appears to raise concerns about the practical workload for agencies and oversight bodies, especially given the new analysis, hearing, posting, and repromulgation requirements.