To amend sections 121.95 and 121.951 of the Revised Code to revise the definition of "regulatory restriction" for purposes of administrative rulemaking and to specify that certain rule changes alone do not eliminate a restriction.
SB 445 revises Ohio’s administrative rule-reduction framework by changing the definition of “regulatory restriction” and clarifying when a rule change counts as eliminating a restriction. Under current law, state agencies must inventory regulatory restrictions in their rules, reduce them by 30% on a schedule, and, after the reduction period, may not add new restrictions unless they remove others. This bill would amend sections 121.95 and 121.951 of the Revised Code to make clear that simply removing or replacing words like “shall,” “must,” or “prohibit” does not by itself eliminate a regulatory restriction unless the underlying requirement or prohibition is actually removed.
The bill also preserves and restates the inventory, reporting, and reduction requirements for state agencies, including annual progress reports to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review and updated inventories showing net reductions. It continues to exclude certain categories of rules from the inventory, such as internal management rules, emergency rules, verbatim federal/state mandates, certain lottery and gaming rules, and rules tied to multistate accreditation or certification requirements. The measure is aimed at tightening how agencies count regulatory burdens and how they demonstrate compliance with the state’s rule-reduction mandates.
If enacted, SB 445 would amend Ohio’s rulemaking statutes governing regulatory restriction inventories and reduction targets, affecting state agencies subject to Chapter 121 and the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review. It would not create a new regulatory program, but would alter how agencies measure, report, and justify reductions in rule-based requirements and prohibitions. The bill would also repeal the existing versions of sections 121.95 and 121.951 and replace them with updated language, thereby changing the legal standard for determining whether a rule revision actually removes a regulatory restriction.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded votes or committee testimony, the overall sentiment appears procedural and reform-oriented rather than overtly partisan. The measure reflects a continued legislative interest in reducing regulatory burdens and ensuring agencies do not count cosmetic rule edits as substantive deregulation. Because no committee discussion or vote history is provided, there is no evidence of formal opposition or support in the available record beyond the bill’s stated policy goal.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s clarification that deleting or replacing mandatory words in a rule does not count as eliminating a regulatory restriction unless the substantive requirement or prohibition is removed. That language may matter to agencies that have used rule edits to show progress toward reduction targets, and to lawmakers or stakeholders who want stricter enforcement of the 30% reduction mandate. Another possible issue is the bill’s effect on agency discretion: it preserves the requirement to remove two existing restrictions before adding a new one after the reduction period, which may be viewed as either a necessary guardrail or an inflexible constraint depending on the agency or regulated party involved.