Kansas House Bill HB2279

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/5/25

Caption

Exempting the department of wildlife and parks from proposed rule and regulation restrictions on implementation and compliance costs.

Summary

HB 2279 amends Kansas law governing when state agencies may adopt proposed rules and regulations that are expected to impose significant costs. Under current law, if an economic impact statement shows that a proposed rule will create at least $1 million in implementation and compliance costs over the first five years, the agency may not adopt the rule unless the Legislature ratifies it by enacting authorizing legislation. The bill keeps that general legislative-ratification framework in place, but creates a specific exemption for rules and regulations adopted by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. The bill also preserves the existing process for agencies to modify a proposed rule to reduce costs and then adopt the revised version if the updated economic impact statement falls below the $1 million threshold. It continues to exclude temporary rules, rules required by federal mandate, and certain rules under existing law, while adding wildlife and parks rules to the list of exempted categories. The bill would take effect upon publication in the statute book.

Impact

HB 2279 would amend K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 77-441, part of the rules and regulations filing act, by narrowing the scope of the legislative ratification requirement for high-cost agency rules. The practical effect is to remove the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks from the statute’s cost-based adoption restriction, allowing that agency to proceed with rulemaking without legislative ratification even when projected implementation and compliance costs exceed $1 million over five years. Other agencies would remain subject to the existing threshold and ratification process.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a targeted administrative rulemaking change rather than a broad policy overhaul. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition in the supplied materials. The available context suggests a neutral to supportive framing focused on exempting one agency from a procedural restriction.

Contention

The main point of contention inherent in the bill is the carve-out for the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. Supporters would likely view the exemption as a practical way to avoid delaying wildlife and parks regulations that may be costly but necessary for agency operations, while critics could argue that it creates unequal treatment among agencies and weakens legislative oversight of expensive regulations. A secondary issue is the broader policy question of whether the $1 million ratification threshold should apply uniformly or whether certain agencies should be exempted from it.