West Virginia House Bill HB4316

West Virginia 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/30/26

Caption

Relating to authorizing the Board of Physical Therapy to promulgate a legislative rule relating to general provisions for athletic trainers.

Summary

House Bill 4316 authorizes the West Virginia Board of Physical Therapy to promulgate a legislative rule governing general provisions for athletic trainers. The bill does not itself create a new licensing scheme or substantive standards in statute; instead, it approves a previously filed administrative rule, 16 CSR 05, that was submitted by the board and revised to address objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee. The measure is a standard rule-authorization bill within the state’s legislative rule process. By enacting HB4316, the Legislature would give legal effect to the board’s rulemaking for athletic trainers under the authority of §30-20A-2, allowing the agency’s regulations on general provisions to take effect as part of West Virginia law. The bill primarily affects the Board of Physical Therapy, athletic trainers, and any individuals or entities regulated under the athletic training rules.

Impact

HB4316 would amend §64-9-1 of the West Virginia Code to authorize a specific legislative rule of the Board of Physical Therapy concerning athletic trainers. Its practical effect is to validate and implement the administrative rule filed in 2025, making the rule enforceable and integrating it into the state’s regulatory framework. The bill affects the scope of agency authority and the regulatory obligations of athletic trainers, but it does not appear to change underlying statutory licensing provisions directly.

Sentiment

Based on the available record, the bill appears routine and noncontroversial. There are no recorded committee transcripts, floor debates, or votes indicating opposition or significant debate, and the bill’s purpose is limited to authorizing a revised administrative rule after review by the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee. The overall sentiment is best characterized as procedural support for agency rulemaking rather than a contested policy change.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials. The only implied issue is that the rule had to be modified to meet objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee before being refiled, suggesting prior technical or policy concerns with the administrative rule itself. However, the bill text and context do not identify any active disagreement among legislators, the board, or affected athletic training stakeholders.