Title 012 | Chapter 002 | Regulation 046REG
PROPOSED
This document is not yet current.
PREVIOUS VERSION
The previous document that this document is based upon is available.
Agricultural Experiment Station
(Amendment)
12 KAR 2:046.Poisonous or deleterious substances.
Section 1.
For the purpose of KRS 250.541(1)(a), poisonous or deleterious substances shall include but are not limited to the following:(1)
Fluorine and a mineral or mineral mixture that is fed directly to a domestic animal if the fluorine exceeds:(a)
0.20 percent for breeding or dairy cattle;(b)
0.30 percent for slaughter cattle;(c)
0.30 percent for sheep;(d)
0.35 percent for lambs;(e)
0.45 percent for swine; and(f)
0.60 percent for poultry.(2)
A fluorine-bearing ingredient if used in an amount that raises the fluorine content of the total ration, excluding roughage, above:(a)
0.004 percent for breeding or dairy cattle;(b)
0.009 percent for slaughter cattle;(c)
0.006 percent for sheep;(d)
0.01 percent for lambs;(e)
0.015 percent for swine; and(f)
0.03 percent for poultry.(3)
A fluorine-bearing ingredient mixed in feed that:(a)
Is fed directly to cattle, sheep, or goats that consume roughage regardless of the amount of grain consumed; and(b)
Results in a daily intake of more than fifty (50) milligrams of fluorine per 100 pounds of body weight.(4)
Soybean meal, flakes or pellets or another vegetable meal, flake, or pellet that have been extracted with trichloroethylene or other chlorinated solvent.(5)
Sulfur dioxide, sulfurous acid, and salts of sulfurous acid that are used in or on feeds or feed ingredients that are considered or labeled a significant source of vitamin B1 (thiamine).(6)
Raw leather residue from tanning or leather manufacturing.Section 2.
A screening or by-product of grains and seeds containing weed seeds used in commercial feed or sold as commercial feed to the ultimate consumer shall be ground fine enough or otherwise treated to destroy the viability of the weed seeds so the finished product contains:(1)
No viable prohibited noxious weed seeds; and(2)
Not more than 480 viable restricted weed seeds per pound.DR. JAMES MATTHEWS, Director of Agricultural Experiment Station
APPROVED BY AGENCY: September 10, 2025
FILED WITH LRC: September 11, 2025 at 10:50 a.m.
PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT PERIOD: A public hearing on this administrative regulation shall be held on November 24, 2025, at 9:00 am, at the offices of the Division of Regulatory Services, 1600 University Court, Lexington, Kentucky 40546. Individuals interested in being heard at this hearing shall notify this agency in writing by five workdays prior to the hearing, of their intent to attend. If no notification of intent to attend the hearing was received by that date, the hearing may be cancelled. A transcript of the public hearing will not be made unless a written request for a transcript is made. If you do not wish to be heard at the public hearing, you may submit written comments on the proposed administrative regulation. Written comments shall be accepted through November 30, 2025. Send written notification of intent to be heard at the public hearing or written comments on the proposed administrative regulation to the contact person.
CONTACT PERSON: G. Alan Harrison, Feed & Milk Director, University of Kentucky Division of Regulatory Services, 103 Regulatory Services Building, Lexington, Kentucky 40546, phone (859) 257-2785, fax (859) 323-9931, email alan.harrison@uky.edu.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS AND TIERING STATEMENT
Contact Person:
G. Alan Harrison
Subject Headings:
Agriculture, Animals: Livestock and Poultry, Equine and Horses, Consumer Protection
(1) Provide a brief summary of:
(a) What this administrative regulation does:
This administrative regulation establishes the requirements for the safe use of substances that might have deleterious effects if not fed according to described standards.
(b) The necessity of this administrative regulation:
Protect animals from consuming toxic substances.
(c) How this administrative regulation conforms to the content of the authorizing statutes:
Helps allow for the efficient enforcement of KRS 250.491 to 250.631, regarding commercial feeds.
(d) How this administrative regulation currently assists or will assist in the effective administration of the statutes:
Establishes standards for safe levels of poisonous or deleterious substances in commercial feeds.
(2) If this is an amendment to an existing administrative regulation, provide a brief summary of:
(a) How the amendment will change this existing administrative regulation:
Establishes that there could be more deleterious or poisonous substances than just those we have listed.
(b) The necessity of the amendment to this administrative regulation:
Allows for new poisonous or deleterious substances that may come along.
(c) How the amendment conforms to the content of the authorizing statutes:
Provides for potential of more toxic compounds being discovered.
(d) How the amendment will assist in the effective administration of the statutes:
Allows for potential of new toxic substances that may need to be regulated as to the amounts allowed in commercial feeds.
(3) Does this administrative regulation or amendment implement legislation from the previous five years?
No
(4) List the type and number of individuals, businesses, organizations, or state and local governments affected by this administrative regulation:
Firms which register commercial feeds in Kentucky will be affected by this administrative regulation.
(5) Provide an analysis of how the entities identified in question (4) will be impacted by either the implementation of this administrative regulation, if new, or by the change, if it is an amendment, including:
(a) List the actions that each of the regulated entities identified in question (4) will have to take to comply with this administrative regulation or amendment:
None unless new poisonous or deleterious substances are recognized that require limits on how much can be in the feed.
(b) In complying with this administrative regulation or amendment, how much will it cost each of the entities identified in question (4):
Nothing
(c) As a result of compliance, what benefits will accrue to the entities identified in question (4):
Protection against producing products that may be toxic to animals.
(6) Provide an estimate of how much it will cost the administrative body to implement this administrative regulation:
(a) Initially:
Nothing.
(b) On a continuing basis:
Nothing
(7) What is the source of the funding to be used for the implementation and enforcement of this administrative regulation or this amendment:
Annual budget of the Division of Regulatory Services
(8) Provide an assessment of whether an increase in fees or funding will be necessary to implement this administrative regulation, if new, or by the change if it is an amendment:
No increase in fees.
(9) State whether or not this administrative regulation establishes any fees or directly or indirectly increases any fees:
No new fees and no increase in existing fees.
(10) TIERING: Is tiering applied?
No, this administrative regulation treats all regulated entities the same.
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(1) Identify each state statute, federal statute, or federal regulation that requires or authorizes the action taken by the administrative regulation:
KRS 250.571
(2) State whether this administrative regulation is expressly authorized by an act of the General Assembly, and if so, identify the act:
KRS 250.571
(3)(a) Identify the promulgating agency and any other affected state units, parts, or divisions:
University of Kentucky Division of Regulatory Services
(b) Estimate the following for each affected state unit, part, or division identified in (3)(a):
1. Expenditures:
For the first year:
No fiscal impact
For subsequent years:
No fiscal impact
2. Revenues:
For the first year:
No fiscal impact
For subsequent years:
No fiscal impact
3. Cost Savings:
For the first year:
No fiscal impact
For subsequent years:
No fiscal impact
(4)(a) Identify affected local entities (for example: cities, counties, fire departments, school districts):
No impact on local entities
(b) Estimate the following for each affected local entity identified in (4)(a):
1. Expenditures:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
2. Revenues:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
3. Cost Savings:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
(5)(a) Identify any affected regulated entities not listed in (3)(a) or (4)(a):
No impact on other entities
(b) Estimate the following for each regulated entity identified in (5)(a):
1. Expenditures:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
2. Revenues:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
3. Cost Savings:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
(6) Provide a narrative to explain the following for each entity identified in (3)(a), (4)(a), and (5)(a)
(a) Fiscal impact of this administrative regulation:
None.
(b) Methodology and resources used to reach this conclusion:
Minor changes in regulation affect only guarantors of animal feed.
(7) Explain, as it relates to the entities identified in (3)(a), (4)(a), and (5)(a):
(a) Whether this administrative regulation will have a "major economic impact", as defined by KRS 13A.010(14):
No
(b) The methodology and resources used to reach this conclusion:
Minor changes in regulation affect only manufacturers of animal feed.
FEDERAL MANDATE ANALYSIS COMPARISON
(1) Federal statute or regulation constituting the federal mandate.
: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and C.F.R. 21
(2) State compliance standards.
: In harmony with federal standards.
(3) Minimum or uniform standards contained in the federal mandate.
: Standards developed by the Association of American Feed Control Officials are in harmony with federal standards.
(4) Will this administrative regulation impose stricter requirements, or additional or different responsibilities or requirements, than those required by the federal mandate?
No
(5) Justification for the imposition of the stricter standard, or additional or different responsibilities or requirements.
: N/A
Agricultural Experiment Station
(Amendment)
12 KAR 2:046.Poisonous or deleterious substances.
Section 1.
For the purpose of KRS 250.541(1)(a), poisonous or deleterious substances shall include but are not limited to the following:(1)
Fluorine and a mineral or mineral mixture that is fed directly to a domestic animal if the fluorine exceeds:(a)
0.20 percent for breeding or dairy cattle;(b)
0.30 percent for slaughter cattle;(c)
0.30 percent for sheep;(d)
0.35 percent for lambs;(e)
0.45 percent for swine; and(f)
0.60 percent for poultry.(2)
A fluorine-bearing ingredient if used in an amount that raises the fluorine content of the total ration, excluding roughage, above:(a)
0.004 percent for breeding or dairy cattle;(b)
0.009 percent for slaughter cattle;(c)
0.006 percent for sheep;(d)
0.01 percent for lambs;(e)
0.015 percent for swine; and(f)
0.03 percent for poultry.(3)
A fluorine-bearing ingredient mixed in feed that:(a)
Is fed directly to cattle, sheep, or goats that consume roughage regardless of the amount of grain consumed; and(b)
Results in a daily intake of more than fifty (50) milligrams of fluorine per 100 pounds of body weight.(4)
Soybean meal, flakes or pellets or another vegetable meal, flake, or pellet that have been extracted with trichloroethylene or other chlorinated solvent.(5)
Sulfur dioxide, sulfurous acid, and salts of sulfurous acid that are used in or on feeds or feed ingredients that are considered or labeled a significant source of vitamin B1 (thiamine).(6)
Raw leather residue from tanning or leather manufacturing.Section 2.
A screening or by-product of grains and seeds containing weed seeds used in commercial feed or sold as commercial feed to the ultimate consumer shall be ground fine enough or otherwise treated to destroy the viability of the weed seeds so the finished product contains:(1)
No viable prohibited noxious weed seeds; and(2)
Not more than 480 viable restricted weed seeds per pound.DR. JAMES MATTHEWS, Director of Agricultural Experiment Station
APPROVED BY AGENCY: September 10, 2025
FILED WITH LRC: September 11, 2025 at 10:50 a.m.
PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT PERIOD: A public hearing on this administrative regulation shall be held on November 24, 2025, at 9:00 am, at the offices of the Division of Regulatory Services, 1600 University Court, Lexington, Kentucky 40546. Individuals interested in being heard at this hearing shall notify this agency in writing by five workdays prior to the hearing, of their intent to attend. If no notification of intent to attend the hearing was received by that date, the hearing may be cancelled. A transcript of the public hearing will not be made unless a written request for a transcript is made. If you do not wish to be heard at the public hearing, you may submit written comments on the proposed administrative regulation. Written comments shall be accepted through November 30, 2025. Send written notification of intent to be heard at the public hearing or written comments on the proposed administrative regulation to the contact person.
CONTACT PERSON: G. Alan Harrison, Feed & Milk Director, University of Kentucky Division of Regulatory Services, 103 Regulatory Services Building, Lexington, Kentucky 40546, phone (859) 257-2785, fax (859) 323-9931, email alan.harrison@uky.edu.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS AND TIERING STATEMENT
Contact Person:
G. Alan Harrison
Subject Headings:
Agriculture, Animals: Livestock and Poultry, Equine and Horses, Consumer Protection
(1) Provide a brief summary of:
(a) What this administrative regulation does:
This administrative regulation establishes the requirements for the safe use of substances that might have deleterious effects if not fed according to described standards.
(b) The necessity of this administrative regulation:
Protect animals from consuming toxic substances.
(c) How this administrative regulation conforms to the content of the authorizing statutes:
Helps allow for the efficient enforcement of KRS 250.491 to 250.631, regarding commercial feeds.
(d) How this administrative regulation currently assists or will assist in the effective administration of the statutes:
Establishes standards for safe levels of poisonous or deleterious substances in commercial feeds.
(2) If this is an amendment to an existing administrative regulation, provide a brief summary of:
(a) How the amendment will change this existing administrative regulation:
Establishes that there could be more deleterious or poisonous substances than just those we have listed.
(b) The necessity of the amendment to this administrative regulation:
Allows for new poisonous or deleterious substances that may come along.
(c) How the amendment conforms to the content of the authorizing statutes:
Provides for potential of more toxic compounds being discovered.
(d) How the amendment will assist in the effective administration of the statutes:
Allows for potential of new toxic substances that may need to be regulated as to the amounts allowed in commercial feeds.
(3) Does this administrative regulation or amendment implement legislation from the previous five years?
No
(4) List the type and number of individuals, businesses, organizations, or state and local governments affected by this administrative regulation:
Firms which register commercial feeds in Kentucky will be affected by this administrative regulation.
(5) Provide an analysis of how the entities identified in question (4) will be impacted by either the implementation of this administrative regulation, if new, or by the change, if it is an amendment, including:
(a) List the actions that each of the regulated entities identified in question (4) will have to take to comply with this administrative regulation or amendment:
None unless new poisonous or deleterious substances are recognized that require limits on how much can be in the feed.
(b) In complying with this administrative regulation or amendment, how much will it cost each of the entities identified in question (4):
Nothing
(c) As a result of compliance, what benefits will accrue to the entities identified in question (4):
Protection against producing products that may be toxic to animals.
(6) Provide an estimate of how much it will cost the administrative body to implement this administrative regulation:
(a) Initially:
Nothing.
(b) On a continuing basis:
Nothing
(7) What is the source of the funding to be used for the implementation and enforcement of this administrative regulation or this amendment:
Annual budget of the Division of Regulatory Services
(8) Provide an assessment of whether an increase in fees or funding will be necessary to implement this administrative regulation, if new, or by the change if it is an amendment:
No increase in fees.
(9) State whether or not this administrative regulation establishes any fees or directly or indirectly increases any fees:
No new fees and no increase in existing fees.
(10) TIERING: Is tiering applied?
No, this administrative regulation treats all regulated entities the same.
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(1) Identify each state statute, federal statute, or federal regulation that requires or authorizes the action taken by the administrative regulation:
KRS 250.571
(2) State whether this administrative regulation is expressly authorized by an act of the General Assembly, and if so, identify the act:
KRS 250.571
(3)(a) Identify the promulgating agency and any other affected state units, parts, or divisions:
University of Kentucky Division of Regulatory Services
(b) Estimate the following for each affected state unit, part, or division identified in (3)(a):
1. Expenditures:
For the first year:
No fiscal impact
For subsequent years:
No fiscal impact
2. Revenues:
For the first year:
No fiscal impact
For subsequent years:
No fiscal impact
3. Cost Savings:
For the first year:
No fiscal impact
For subsequent years:
No fiscal impact
(4)(a) Identify affected local entities (for example: cities, counties, fire departments, school districts):
No impact on local entities
(b) Estimate the following for each affected local entity identified in (4)(a):
1. Expenditures:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
2. Revenues:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
3. Cost Savings:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
(5)(a) Identify any affected regulated entities not listed in (3)(a) or (4)(a):
No impact on other entities
(b) Estimate the following for each regulated entity identified in (5)(a):
1. Expenditures:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
2. Revenues:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
3. Cost Savings:
For the first year:
No impact
For subsequent years:
No impact
(6) Provide a narrative to explain the following for each entity identified in (3)(a), (4)(a), and (5)(a)
(a) Fiscal impact of this administrative regulation:
None.
(b) Methodology and resources used to reach this conclusion:
Minor changes in regulation affect only guarantors of animal feed.
(7) Explain, as it relates to the entities identified in (3)(a), (4)(a), and (5)(a):
(a) Whether this administrative regulation will have a "major economic impact", as defined by KRS 13A.010(14):
No
(b) The methodology and resources used to reach this conclusion:
Minor changes in regulation affect only manufacturers of animal feed.
FEDERAL MANDATE ANALYSIS COMPARISON
(1) Federal statute or regulation constituting the federal mandate.
: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and C.F.R. 21
(2) State compliance standards.
: In harmony with federal standards.
(3) Minimum or uniform standards contained in the federal mandate.
: Standards developed by the Association of American Feed Control Officials are in harmony with federal standards.
(4) Will this administrative regulation impose stricter requirements, or additional or different responsibilities or requirements, than those required by the federal mandate?
No
(5) Justification for the imposition of the stricter standard, or additional or different responsibilities or requirements.
: N/A