Committee advances Regulatory Freedom Act requiring fiscal impact reviews for costly rules
Loading...
Summary
The House Government Operations Committee advanced HB1913, the "Regulatory Freedom Act," after sponsor testimony and supportive public comments from business groups; it requires agencies to publish rules during a 45‑day notice, seek input from regulated industries, and produce fiscal impact statements for rules expected to cost more than $1,000,000 over five years. The committee voted 12‑1 to send the bill to calendar and rules.
Representative Whit Boyd presented House Bill 1913, the "Regulatory Freedom Act," saying it would force agencies to publish proposed rules during the 45‑day public notice period, reach out to trade associations for compliance cost estimates, and prepare fiscal impact statements for rules expected to impose a negative financial effect.
"If it is determined that it will have a negative impact of more than $1,000,000 over a 5 year period of time ... the rule receives a positive recommendation from the joint government operations committee, then those rules will be voted on on a stand alone legislative measure," the sponsor said, describing the bill’s mechanism to elevate high‑cost rules for full legislative review. He added the emergency‑rule threshold would be $1,000,000 over one year and noted limited exemptions (for federal requirements and certain licensure changes).
The bill drew three supporters during public testimony. Jack Powers of Beacon Impact told the committee the measure would protect Tennesseans from "unnecessarily costly and burdensome government regulations" and add legislative oversight when rules have a high monetary impact. Michael Lochte of Americans for Prosperity praised the measure as a way to ensure agencies understand the economic burden of regulations on small businesses. Kevin Hensley of the Tennessee Farm Bureau said his members have long sought greater engagement and that the general assembly should own the cost when regulations impose significant burdens on industry.
Members pressed the sponsor on procedural mechanics. Representative Clemons asked whether the proposal could create instability for businesses if agencies were given authority to pause or alter enforcement based on fiscal statements; the sponsor and the chair responded that the bill does not retroactively change rules already in effect and that the bill triggers a separate legislative vote only for newly promulgated rules that exceed the stated fiscal threshold. Representative Renaud asked whether a rule with a note above $1,000,000 could remain in limbo until the legislature convened; the sponsor confirmed regular rules would not take effect until the next regular session vote in those cases, while emergency or federally required rules have different treatment.
After debate, the committee voted to advance HB1913 to calendar and rules. The clerk recorded 12 ayes and 1 nay.
The next steps: HB1913 will be placed on the House calendar; if enacted, agencies would be required to follow the new notice, stakeholder outreach and fiscal‑statement procedures described in the bill.
