Tennessee House Bill HB2097

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/24/24
• Refer: 1/29/24
• Refer: 3/13/24
• Refer: 3/27/24
• Refer: 4/8/24
• Chaptered: 5/13/24
• Passed: 5/13/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 62 and Title 63, relative to advisory opinions.

Impact

By formalizing the process of issuing advisory private letter rulings, HB 2097 may enhance transparency and predictability for affected individuals navigating regulatory requirements. This bill could significantly impact how state entities manage inquiries and complaints, as it requires the commissioner of commerce and insurance, as well as the commissioner of health, to create rules under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act for this process. Moreover, it is expected to facilitate a more efficient handling of disputes that arise from these rulings, potentially reducing litigation and administrative burdens for both state entities and licensed individuals.

Summary

House Bill 2097 aims to amend certain sections of the Tennessee Code Annotated related to advisory opinions issued by state entities. The bill mandates that all state entities and programs attached to the division of regulatory boards must provide advisory private letter rulings to individuals who are certified, licensed, or registered with these entities upon their request. This ruling is intended to clarify regulatory matters within the entities' jurisdiction while ensuring that the rulings have no precedential value for future inquiries or contested cases, maintaining clarity in regulatory processes.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 2097 appears generally positive, particularly among regulatory and professional associations that seek clarity in communication with state entities. Supporters believe that the bill will empower individuals to better understand and navigate the laws affecting their professions without fear of unexpected regulatory actions. However, some caution may exist regarding the bill’s implementation, especially concerning the specifics of the rules to be promulgated and how fees for advisory rulings might be structured.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise around the scope and administrative costs of implementing these advisory rulings. While the bill aims to streamline communication and reduce ambiguity, critics might argue that introducing a fee for these rulings could deter individuals from seeking advice. Furthermore, concerns could be raised about maintaining an adequate balance between public accessibility to advisory rulings and the regulatory board's fiscal responsibilities in managing these inquiries.