California OT Board initiates multiple rulemakings to clarify delegated authority, attestation and address rules

The California Board of Occupational Therapy on Feb. 26 voted to initiate four separate rulemaking packages to update how the board carries out licensing and enforcement functions.

Board staff told members the proposed packages are designed to clarify existing practice and remove ambiguities that have caused operational and legal confusion. The board approved text to (a) delegate, where appropriate, the authority to order mental or physical examinations of applicants or licensees to the executive officer (amending CCR sections 41.01 and 41.48); (b) add an attestation for applicants and a comparable attestation for licensees at renewal (placement proposed in 4110 and 4122/4120); (c) clarify what the "address of record" and a separate residence address mean and how addresses are made available under DCA rules; and (d) revise continuing‑education audit language (PDU retention, audit outcomes, and orders of abatement) in section 4162.

Austin, a regulatory staff member, and DP Miller, the board’s regulatory counsel, reviewed the language and timeline for Office of Administrative Law (OAL) review and public comment. Legal counsel explained that prior rule text used the word "board" in a small‑"b" sense that could be read either as "staff" or the governing board; the proposed change substitutes the explicit term "executive officer" in the applicable sections so staff may take administrative steps that historically were intended to be handled by the executive office. The board’s motion authorized the executive officer to submit the text to the director of the Department of Consumer Affairs and to the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency for review and to initiate the rulemaking process if no adverse comments are received.

Members raised questions about public safety and privacy during the discussion of address rules. Staff explained the statutory requirement that an address of record be maintained and that, while the board may not publish a private residence on the license verification page, DCA maintains accessible lists and downloadable datasets (with options such as a PO box or state‑provided forwarding addresses available when safety is a concern). The board agreed to move forward with a narrowly scoped rulemaking package that clarifies the existing obligations rather than changing the public‑availability standard.

On continuing education, staff proposed clarifications including specifying that PDU records be kept for four years from the end of the renewal period (or from the date a delinquent renewal is later completed), clarifying audit outcomes (citation/fine vs. order of abatement), and standardizing terminology ("PDU"). The board approved the proposed language as amended during the meeting.

All motions were adopted by roll call as recorded in the meeting: the motions to initiate rulemaking on the delegation provisions (41.01/41.48), the applicant/renewal attestations (4110/4122), the address‑of‑record language (4102), and continuing‑education audit language (4162) were carried. The board directed staff to make non‑substantive edits as needed, submit packages for agency review and begin the 45‑day notice/comment process.

What happens next: Staff will submit the packages to DCA and the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency for review and, if no adverse comments are filed, will proceed with the formal OAL rulemaking timelines (45‑day comment period followed by possible 15‑day modifications and final submission to OAL). Members were reminded that approvals are not final until OAL completes its review and the packages are filed.