AN ACT relating to deficient administrative regulations and declaring an emergency.
Summary
SB 65 is a Kentucky administrative oversight bill that targets a specific set of proposed regulatory amendments the General Assembly determined were deficient under KRS 13A.030 and later withdrawn by the responsible agencies. The bill identifies five regulations across behavioral health, bonding, and credit union rules: 907 KAR 1:044, 907 KAR 15:005, 405 KAR 10:001, 405 KAR 10:015, and 808 KAR 3:050. It declares those proposed amendments null, void, and unenforceable as of the act’s effective date.
The bill also bars the affected administrative bodies from repromulgating regulations that are identical or substantially the same as the withdrawn proposals for a specified period, from January 7, 2025 through June 1, 2026. In addition, it directs that the withdrawn proposed amendments remain available to the public in the Legislative Research Commission’s regulations compiler. The measure includes an emergency clause, so it took effect immediately upon enactment or gubernatorial approval, reflecting the legislature’s view that prompt action was necessary to align agency rulemaking with statutory intent.
Impact
SB 65 affects Kentucky’s administrative law by limiting agency authority to revive or reissue certain withdrawn proposed regulations for a defined period and by formally invalidating those proposals in statute. It directly impacts the agencies responsible for community mental health center behavioral health services, financial/bonding regulations, and credit union regulation, while also reinforcing the General Assembly’s oversight role under KRS Chapter 13A. The bill does not amend the underlying substantive statutes governing those programs, but it constrains future rulemaking and preserves the challenged proposals as public records.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, with strong majorities in both chambers and an eventual veto override. The emergency declaration and the broad bipartisan vote margins indicate that many legislators viewed the measure as a necessary correction to deficient agency rulemaking and a defense of legislative prerogatives. At the same time, the existence of multiple dissenting votes in both the House and Senate shows that some lawmakers were not fully aligned with the approach.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the legislature’s decision to nullify withdrawn proposed regulations and prohibit agencies from reissuing substantially similar rules for more than a year. Supporters likely saw this as an appropriate response to deficient rulemaking and a way to ensure agencies stay within statutory bounds, while opponents may have viewed it as an aggressive restriction on administrative flexibility or an intrusion into agency expertise. The affected subject areas—behavioral health services, bonding, and credit unions—suggest the bill touched both public health and financial regulation, which may have contributed to differing views on how much control the legislature should exert over agency rulemaking.