Tennessee Senate Bill SB1505

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/7/26
• Engrossed: 2/2/26
• Enrolled: 3/17/26
• Passed: 4/1/26
• Chaptered: 4/6/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 63, Chapter 3, relative to the board of podiatric medical examiners.

Summary

SB1505 amends Tennessee’s statutes governing state boards to update the list of boards that are subject to the general provisions in Title 4, Chapter 29. The bill removes one board from the statutory list in § 4-29-247(a) and adds the Board of Pediatric Medical Examiners to the list in § 4-29-252(a), which means the board is brought under the state’s standard board-termination and reauthorization framework. In practical terms, the bill affects the legal status and administrative oversight of the Board of Pediatric Medical Examiners created in Title 63, Chapter 3. By placing the board in the applicable sunset/reauthorization statute, the General Assembly ensures the board remains subject to periodic review and continuation by the legislature rather than operating outside that framework. The bill does not change clinical licensing standards or medical practice rules directly; it changes how the board is categorized under state law.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 4-29-247 and 4-29-252 to revise which boards are included in the state’s general termination and continuation provisions. Its main legal effect is to add the Board of Pediatric Medical Examiners, created by § 63-3-103, to the list of boards that are continued under the sunset-review structure. This affects the board itself, the state agencies that oversee board administration, and indirectly pediatric medical examiners regulated by that board.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad support and little opposition. The Senate Government Operations Committee recommended passage unanimously, and the floor vote shown in the record was also unanimous. There are no committee transcripts indicating substantive debate or controversy, and the bill appears to have moved as a routine administrative measure.

Contention

No notable points of contention are reflected in the provided record. Because there are no committee transcripts, the specific rationale for adding the board to the continuation list is not documented here, and no member opposition is shown in the votes. The measure appears to have been treated as a technical governance update rather than a policy dispute.