Tennessee House Bill HB0881

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Refer: 2/6/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 221, relative to subsurface sewage disposal systems.

Summary

HB0881 amends Tennessee law governing subsurface sewage disposal systems by prohibiting the Department of Environment and Conservation from requiring a renewal fee for a septic system installer license, so long as the installer is in good standing with the department. The bill applies notwithstanding existing law or any conflicting rule, meaning it overrides current administrative requirements to the extent they impose a renewal fee on qualifying installers. The measure is narrow in scope and focused on licensing costs for septic system installers. It does not change technical standards for installation, inspection, or permitting of subsurface sewage disposal systems; rather, it removes a specific fee tied to license renewal for installers who remain in good standing. The act is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2025.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 221, by adding a new subsection to Section 68-221-409. Its practical effect is to bar the department from collecting a renewal fee from septic system installer license holders who are in good standing, reducing a regulatory cost for that occupational group and limiting agency discretion to impose such a fee by rule.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded sentiment to assess. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be a targeted regulatory relief measure for licensed septic system installers rather than a broadly controversial policy change.

Contention

The only apparent point of contention is the loss of renewal-fee revenue and the restriction on the department’s authority to require fees by rule. Support would likely come from septic system installers and related industry stakeholders who benefit from lower licensing costs, while any opposition would likely come from the department or others concerned about reduced administrative funding or precedent for fee exemptions.