Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rvts Credentialing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Veterinary Medical Board votes to pursue repeal of out-of-state RVT equivalency rule after stakeholder review
Summary
The board voted to initiate rulemaking to repeal CCR section 2.068.6, which currently treats some out-of-state RVT registrations with specified experience as equivalent to California education requirements; the board said it wants all pathways to include a formal educational component going forward.
The Veterinary Medical Board on Jan. 14 authorized rulemaking to repeal California Code of Regulations section 2.068.6, which currently recognizes certain out‑of‑state veterinary‑technician registrations as equivalent to California’s education-and‑experience pathway.
What the board decided
The board’s Registered Veterinary Technician subcommittee reviewed stakeholder comments and concluded that all RVT applicants should demonstrate a formal education component. The subcommittee recommended repealing CCR 2.068.6; the full board authorized staff to initiate the rulemaking process to repeal the regulation.
Why the change was proposed
CCR 2.068.6 permits applicants licensed in a subset of other U.S. or U.S. territory jurisdictions to qualify for California registration on the basis of experience (4,416 hours, plus the national exam), without a specified education component. The subcommittee said the availability of pathways that require little or no formal education in some states creates inconsistent expectations for competence in California and urged that all pathways include an educational component to protect animal patients and clients.
Stakeholder input and concerns
Stakeholders who participated in two advisory meetings had differing views. Several technicians who relied on alternate pathways said the route enabled working adults to qualify without disrupting livelihoods. Educational programs and others stressed the importance of formal instruction for anesthesia, patient care and other technical competencies. The subcommittee said it will continue work to define an appropriate, consistent education requirement and to revisit related regulation (CCR 2.068.5) for details such as required hours and instructor qualifications.
Board action and next steps
The board authorized staff to submit regulatory text to repeal CCR 2.068.6 and to prepare the associated rulemaking package, which will include public notice, comment periods and any necessary economic analyses. The board’s subcommittee will continue work on the alternate‑pathway regulation (CCR 2.068.5) to determine the right balance of education and clinical experience.
Provenance (excerpt from transcript): - "Based on the feedback... the subcommittee recommends requiring some component of education for all RVT applicants. As such, the subcommittee believes CCR Title 16, Section 2,068.6 should be repealed."
