Tennessee House Bill HB1558

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Refer: 1/21/26
• Refer: 3/2/26
• Chaptered: 4/6/26
• Passed: 4/6/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 63, Chapter 17, relative to the board of communications disorders and sciences.

Summary

HB1558 amends Tennessee’s statutes governing the Board of Communications Disorders and Sciences. The bill removes the board from one list of state entities in Title 4 and adds it to another list of boards that are subject to the state’s general board-continuation and review provisions. In practical terms, the measure updates the board’s statutory placement so it is recognized under the correct continuing-board framework in Tennessee law. The bill does not create a new licensing program or change the board’s substantive regulatory authority over speech-language pathology, audiology, or related professions. Instead, it is a housekeeping or technical statutory update tied to the board’s existence under Title 63, Chapter 17. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill makes a narrow amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated by deleting the Board of Communications Disorders and Sciences from one statutory list in § 4-29-247 and adding it to the list in § 4-29-252. This affects how the board is treated under Tennessee’s board review/continuation statutes, but it does not alter the board’s core duties, licensing powers, or the professional standards it oversees for communications disorders and sciences practitioners.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House Government Operations Committee unanimously, was placed on the consent calendar, and then passed the House floor 93-0. The voting pattern suggests lawmakers viewed it as a routine technical correction rather than a substantive policy change.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The only recorded committee vote against the bill was in the House Calendar & Rules Committee, where the measure was placed on the consent calendar despite a 0-2 vote, which likely reflects procedural handling rather than opposition to the policy itself. No committee transcripts were provided, and no major disagreements over licensing, board authority, or professional regulation are apparent.