Tennessee House Bill HB0404

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/25
• Refer: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/10/25
• Engrossed: 2/20/25
• Enrolled: 2/25/25
• Passed: 3/14/25
• Chaptered: 3/24/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 63, Chapter 11, relative to the professional music therapy advisory committee of the board of examiners in psychology.

Summary

HB0404 makes a narrow administrative change to Tennessee law governing state boards and advisory committees. It removes the Professional Music Therapy Advisory Committee of the Board of Examiners in Psychology from one statutory list of entities subject to periodic review and reauthorizes it in another list, reflecting that the committee is created under Tennessee Code Annotated § 63-11-601 and remains an active part of the state’s regulatory structure. In practical terms, the bill updates Title 4 and Title 63 so the music therapy advisory committee continues to be recognized within the state’s professional licensing framework. The measure does not create a new licensing program or change substantive standards for music therapists; instead, it preserves the committee’s legal status and aligns the state’s committee-review statutes with the committee’s ongoing existence.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 4-29-246 and 4-29-248 to remove the professional music therapy advisory committee from one statutory subsection and add it to another, ensuring the committee remains authorized under the state’s sunset/review framework. Its effect is limited to state administrative law and the governance of the Board of Examiners in Psychology’s music therapy advisory committee, with no direct change to criminal, tax, or general consumer laws.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House Government Operations Committee unanimously, cleared the House on the consent calendar with no dissenting votes, and was adopted in the Senate unanimously as well. The voting pattern suggests routine agreement that the committee should remain in place and properly listed in statute.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. Because no committee transcript is provided and all recorded votes were unanimous, no opposing arguments are documented. Any discussion likely centered on technical statutory housekeeping rather than policy disagreement, with support from sponsors and no recorded opposition from legislators or affected parties.