Tennessee Senate Bill SB0093

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/25
• Chaptered: 3/31/25
• Passed: 3/31/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 68, Chapter 140, Part 3, relative to the Tennessee emergency medical services board.

Summary

SB0093 is a Tennessee government-operations measure concerning the Tennessee Emergency Medical Services Board. The bill amends the state’s statutory list of entities subject to periodic review under Tennessee Code Annotated Title 4, Chapter 29 by removing the board from one section and adding it to another, which is the typical legislative mechanism used to continue or reauthorize a board’s existence under the state’s sunset-review framework. In practical terms, the bill preserves the Tennessee Emergency Medical Services Board as a recognized state entity created under Title 68, Chapter 140, Part 3, while aligning it with the state’s administrative review and continuation statutes. The bill does not appear to change the board’s substantive regulatory powers over EMS licensing, standards, or oversight; instead, it updates the statutory housekeeping provisions that govern whether the board remains in effect.

Impact

The bill affects Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 4-29-246 and 4-29-250 by removing the Tennessee Emergency Medical Services Board from one statutory subsection and adding it to the list of boards continued under the state’s periodic review provisions. This keeps the board active within the state’s sunset-review structure and ensures its legal status remains current without altering the underlying EMS regulatory scheme.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests broad support and little controversy. The Senate Government Operations Committee recommended passage on a unanimous 8-0 vote, indicating the measure was viewed as routine and noncontroversial. No committee transcript objections or dissenting arguments were provided, and the bill ultimately became law.

Contention

There is no recorded substantive contention in the provided materials. Because the bill is a technical continuation measure rather than a policy change, any discussion would likely have centered on administrative compliance with the sunset-review process rather than on EMS policy itself. The absence of recorded opposition suggests no identifiable stakeholder conflict in the available record.