Tennessee House Bill HB1138

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Filed/Introduced: 8/16/26
• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/12/25
• Refer: 2/19/25
• Refer: 2/26/25
• Engrossed: 3/25/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 105, relative to blasting.

Summary

HB1138 amends Tennessee’s blasting law in Title 68, Chapter 105. The bill changes the requirement that a person or entity responsible for blasting “shall provide documentation in a timely manner” by adding that the documentation must also be provided “at no cost to the owner or occupant.” In practical terms, the measure clarifies that property owners or occupants affected by blasting cannot be charged for the required documentation. The bill appears narrowly focused on the administrative obligations tied to blasting activity and the rights of nearby property owners or occupants who may need records or proof related to blasting operations. It does not create a new permitting system or change blasting standards themselves; instead, it modifies the cost responsibility for providing documentation under existing law.

Impact

This bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 68-105-105(a), to prohibit charging owners or occupants for blasting-related documentation that must be provided in a timely manner. The effect is to shift any associated cost burden away from affected property owners and onto the party responsible for blasting or the entity required to furnish the records. It may affect blasting contractors, mine operators, or other regulated parties subject to Title 68, Chapter 105, while benefiting residents and property owners who request or receive such documentation.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was broadly supported and noncontroversial. It advanced through subcommittee and committee unanimously and passed the House on consent calendar with no recorded opposition. The absence of committee transcript discussion also suggests the measure was viewed as a straightforward consumer- or property-owner protection rather than a contested policy change.

Contention

No notable substantive opposition appears in the available record. The only likely point of policy interest is the allocation of costs: regulated blasting parties may bear a small additional administrative expense, while owners and occupants gain a right to receive documentation without charge. Because the bill was approved unanimously at each recorded stage, any disagreement was minimal or absent in the legislative process shown here.