Tennessee House Bill HB1913

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Refer: 2/4/26
• Refer: 4/6/26
• Engrossed: 4/13/26
• Enrolled: 4/23/26
• Passed: 5/19/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 5, relative to administrative rules.

Impact

If enacted, HB1913 would significantly change the way state agencies prepare and implement rules. The requirement for a prescribed notice and public commentary before the preparation of a fiscal impact statement introduces a higher degree of accountability and community involvement. Additionally, by allowing a faster repeal process for less impactful rules, the bill aims to streamline administrative procedures, possibly resulting in reduced bureaucratic delays. However, rules anticipated to impose substantial negative economic impacts would still need to follow stricter regulations prior to being repealed or amended, maintaining a safeguard against large-scale economic fallout.

Summary

House Bill 1913, referred to as the 'Regulatory Freedom Act of 2026', seeks to amend the Tennessee Code Annotated concerning administrative rules. Its primary goal is to reform the process by which state agencies create and amend rules, particularly emphasizing the significance of fiscal impact statements. This bill mandates that any new or amended rule projected to have a negative fiscal impact must undergo a public comment period where stakeholders can provide their feedback before a formal impact assessment is conducted. This push for transparency aims to ensure that the regulated communities are involved in the rule-making process adequately.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB1913 appears to be generally supportive among proponents who emphasize the need for transparency in government processes and local business engagement. However, there are concerns among critics that the bill could lead to potential delays in necessary rule updates and may not adequately protect the interests of all stakeholders. Thus, while the bill is positioned as a measure to enhance regulatory efficiency, it's seen by some as a step that might compromise effective governance if not carefully balanced with community needs.

Contention

Notable points of contention within the discussions surrounding HB1913 revolve around the balance between reducing regulatory burdens and ensuring public oversight. Advocates argue that enhancing public participation in the rule-making process is fundamental to democracy and could lead to better regulatory outcomes. Conversely, detractors emphasize the risk of complicating the rule-making process, potentially stalling vital regulations needed for public health and safety, indicating a broader debate over how to effectively manage state regulations while still allowing for economic growth.