SB20 makes sweeping changes to Kentucky’s administrative regulation process, with the most significant provision being a temporary halt on most new or amended administrative regulations after March 31, 2025. Under the bill, administrative bodies would generally lose authority to file or promulgate new ordinary or emergency regulations, amendments, repealers, or regulations in contemplation of a statute unless they certify that the regulation falls within one of several exceptions. Those exceptions include regulations that will not have a major economic impact, emergency rules needed to address an imminent threat to public health, safety, or welfare, rules needed to prevent loss of state or federal funds, rules needed to meet a legal deadline, rules needed to comply with a court order, and health facility/service licensure rules under KRS Chapter 216B.
The bill also revises multiple provisions in KRS Chapter 13A governing how regulations are drafted, filed, reviewed, and analyzed. It expands and clarifies definitions, strengthens the Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee’s authority to identify deficient regulations, and adds a new deficiency category for violations of the bill’s new Section 8 restrictions. It requires more detailed cost analysis and fiscal note information, including projected effects on state and local government and regulated entities, and it gives the regulations compiler authority to reject filings that do not meet the bill’s formatting and filing requirements. The bill also makes electronic filing and website notice requirements more explicit.
In practical terms, SB20 would significantly affect state agencies, boards, and other administrative bodies by limiting their ability to issue regulations and by imposing stricter procedural and documentation requirements. It would also affect regulated entities, local governments, and small businesses by changing how regulatory burdens are evaluated and by potentially reducing the number of new regulatory requirements adopted after the effective date. The bill declares an emergency and would take effect immediately on March 31, 2025.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly pro-oversight and pro-restraint on administrative rulemaking, emphasizing legislative control, transparency, and confidence in government. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the available materials. However, the structure of the bill suggests a policy preference for sharply limiting agency discretion and increasing legislative review of regulations.
The main point of contention is likely the breadth of the moratorium on administrative regulations and the extent to which it constrains executive-branch agencies. Supporters would likely view the bill as a necessary check on regulatory overreach and a way to reduce burdens on business and government, while opponents may argue it could hinder timely agency action, create implementation gaps, and interfere with health, safety, environmental, and other regulatory functions. The Governor-certification requirement for many executive-branch entities is another likely flashpoint because it adds a direct executive approval layer to the rulemaking process.
SB20 would substantially amend Kentucky’s administrative regulation statutes in KRS Chapter 13A by tightening filing, formatting, fiscal note, and review requirements and by creating a new legal restriction on agency rulemaking after March 31, 2025. It would also authorize the Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee and the regulations compiler to police compliance more aggressively, including rejecting nonconforming filings and identifying new grounds for deficiency or expiration. The bill would directly affect state agencies, local governments, regulated businesses, and the public by limiting regulatory activity and increasing procedural oversight.
The bill’s overall tone is restrictive toward administrative agencies and favorable to legislative oversight, transparency, and cost control. No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize beyond the bill’s text. Based on the language alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to supporters of deregulation and stronger checks on executive-branch rulemaking.
The most notable contention is the near-total pause on new or amended regulations after the effective date, which is softened only by narrow exceptions. Another likely point of dispute is the requirement that many executive-branch agencies include a Governor certification for regulations meeting one of the listed exceptions, which could be seen as increasing political control over rulemaking. The bill’s expanded filing rejection authority, stricter cost-analysis requirements, and new deficiency standards may also draw concern from agencies that rely on flexible rulemaking to implement statutes.