Tennessee House Bill HB1560

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 14, relative to the board of dispensing opticians.

Summary

HB1560 amends Tennessee’s general law provisions governing state boards to specifically recognize the Board of Dispensing Opticians as a board created under Title 63, Chapter 14. The bill makes a technical change to Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29, which lists the state regulatory boards and commissions subject to periodic review and reauthorization. In practical terms, the measure updates the statutory list of boards by removing one outdated reference and adding the Board of Dispensing Opticians to the list of entities covered under the state’s board review framework. The bill does not appear to change the licensing, disciplinary, or operational powers of the board itself; rather, it aligns the general board statutes with the existence of the dispensing opticians board in Title 63.

Impact

The bill’s main legal effect is to amend Tennessee’s board-review statutes so the Board of Dispensing Opticians is expressly included among the boards recognized under Title 4, Chapter 29. This affects the state’s administrative structure and the statutory inventory of boards subject to legislative oversight, but it does not directly alter the substantive regulation of dispensing opticians, licensees, or consumers.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and received broad support throughout the legislative process. It passed the House Government Operations Committee unanimously, was placed on the consent calendar, and then passed the House floor with no recorded opposition. The available voting history suggests general agreement that the measure was a routine technical update.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. Because the bill is largely administrative and technical, no committee transcripts or debate excerpts indicate disagreement over policy changes. The only procedural note is that it moved through the consent calendar process, which is typically reserved for measures considered uncontroversial.