Rules in Progress
The rule-making process is open to the public. The public is welcome to take part in helping us write rules. Rules are also known as regulations, Washington Administrative Code, or WAC. The rule-making process includes public notices and workshops, and usually a public hearing before a rule becomes final.
To get updates about rule making and other topics related to psychologists, subscribe for updates at the bottom of the page.
Current rules in progress
Due to the public comments received on issues beyond the scope of the original rulemaking surrounding licensing requirements, the board refiled the CR-101 on February 23, 2023, to open additional rule sections and consider additional topics. After the passing of SSHB 1724 (see below for more information) a temporary pause was placed on this rulemaking due to the overlapping topics. A notice will be sent out on GovDelivery once work on this rulemaking is resumed.
Substitute Senate Bill 5229 (2022) – Health Equity Continuing Education
A virtual rules hearing was held on October 13, 2023, on the proposed amendments to adopt the health equity model rules of two hours of health equity continuing education every three years. Additional changes were being proposed to improve clarity in the chapter and remove obsolete language, including provisions that allow the board to permit CE from another jurisdiction to fulfill Washington’s CE requirements and allow the board to waive CE requirements for a retired psychologist who wishes to maintain active licensure.
Full details on the proposed changes are in the CR-102 and Draft Language (PDF) and Significant Analysis (PDF) documents.
The board approved the filing of the CR-103, the final step before becoming effective. The filing of this process is in progress.
Second Substitute House Bill 1724 – Increasing the Behavioral Health Workforce (2023)
Section 6 of the bill instructs the board to adopt emergency rules by July 1, 2024, to implement changes to licensing requirements to remove barriers to entering and remaining in the health care workforce and to streamline and shorten the credentialing process. Additionally, Section 7 of the bill also instructs the board to adopt permanent rules for the same purpose by July 1, 2025. As a result, the board is looking for public feedback on areas that were identified through prior workshops that fall under the indicated purpose.
The board is asking for feedback on the following:
|Subsection 3 of WAC 246-924-046 indicates an applicant must complete 3 or more semester credits or 5 or more quarter credits in each of the 15 content areas that must be a part of an applicants doctoral degree program in order to meet the educational licensing requirements.
|The board voted to review the list of content areas and see if there are ways the list can be reduced, consolidated, and/or clarified.
|Which content areas should be removed, consolidated, and/or clarified? (refer to linked WAC to view the full list of content areas)
|WAC 246-924-047 states no more than two courses completed outside of the doctoral degree program are accepted to meet the educational requirements. Subsection 2(ii) of WAC 246-924-046 states courses taken before the doctoral degree program may be accepted if the doctoral degree program accepted the courses.
|The board voted to support allowing more courses taken outside the doctoral program to meet the educational requirements.
|How many many courses should be allowed to be completed outside of the doctoral degree program? Should courses completed before the doctoral degree program in the masters degree be accepted even if it was not accepted by the doctoral degree program and does not appear in the doctoral degree transcript? Under what circumstances should this be allowed? Is there any specific criteria or allowances you would like to see for re-specialization programs?
|There is currently no separate pathway or written guidelines for out-of-country applicants.
|The board voted to support an effort to ease the pathway to licensure for foreign-educated and foreign-licensed applicants.
|Are there any recommendations for third-party credential evaluators? Are there other jurisdictions we should look at as a guide that have a clear pathway for these applicants? Any suggestions on what this pathway for licensure could look like? What changes would make this licensing pathway easier or clearer to navigate? Are there any concerns about risks that might come with changes to this licensing pathway?
Please provide your feedback via email by January 5, 2024 with "Public Comment" in the subject line.