8 General Notices/Errata

GENERAL NOTICES/ERRATA

Vol. 32 Iss. 7 - November 30, 2015

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services conducted a small business impact review of 2VAC5-11, Public Participation Guidelines, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is publishing its report of findings dated October 22, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

The agency determined this regulation continues to be necessary as it is required by § 2.2-4007.02 of the Code of Virginia and establishes the mechanisms by which the agency will advise the public of the agency's regulatory actions. The agency has not received any comments or complaints regarding this regulation. The regulation is not complex and is easily understood. The regulation does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. The regulation was promulgated in 2008 using the model public participation guidelines issued by the Department of Planning and Budget. This periodic review is the first evaluation of this regulation subsequent to its adoption in 2008. No factors have changed since 2008 that necessitate amending this regulation. This regulation places no economic burden on any small business.

Contact Information: Erin Williams, Senior Policy Analyst, P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone [phone], FAX (804) 371-7679, or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services conducted a small business impact review of 2VAC5-80, Requirements Governing the Branding of Cattle in Virginia, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is publishing its report of findings dated October 19, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

The agency has determined that there is a continued need for this regulation. Many farms that have cattle are small businesses, and this regulation facilitates the tracing and identification of cattle and protects farmers against theft and unlawful dealing in cattle. There have been no comments or complaints received from the public for this regulation. The regulation is not complex and does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. The regulation was last evaluated during a periodic review conducted in 2011. In the period since this regulation was last evaluated, there have been no significant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors.

Contact Information: Dr. Charles Broaddus, Program Manager, Office of Veterinary Services, P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services conducted a small business impact review of 2VAC5-190, Rules and Regulations Establishing a Monitoring Program for Avian Influenza and Other Poultry Diseases, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is publishing its report of findings dated October 19, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

The agency has determined that there is a continued need for this regulation in order to protect the poultry industry in Virginia. Many farms that have poultry are small businesses, and this regulation decreases the potential for the spread of disease among poultry populations. There have been no comments or complaints received from the public for this regulation. The regulation is not complex and does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. The regulation was last evaluated during a periodic review in 2009. In the period since this regulation was last evaluated, there have been no significant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors.

Contact Information: Dr. Charles Broaddus, Program Manager, Office of Veterinary Services, P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services conducted a small business impact review of 2VAC5-240, Rules and Regulations for Enforcement of the Grain Handlers Law, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is publishing its report of findings dated September 1, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

The agency has determined that this regulation is effective in achieving its goals of protecting Virginia buyers and sellers of grain. Because the selling of grain in Virginia is tremendously important to its economy, there is a continued need for this regulation. The agency has not received any complaints or comments concerning this regulation. This regulation is not complex and is easily understood by industry. The regulation does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with state or federal law. The regulation was last evaluated during a periodic review conducted in 2011. In the period since this regulation was last evaluated, there have been no significant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors that would necessitate a change to this regulation. This regulation assists in ensuring the fair marketing of grain, and the agency does not believe the regulation places any undue burden on small businesses in the grain industry.

Contact Information: Randy Sanford, Grain Law Supervisor; P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services conducted a small business impact review of 2VAC5-270, Virginia Grade Standards for Breeder Swine, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is publishing its report of findings dated October 22, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

The regulation continues to be needed to provide a fair and equitable grading standard for evaluation of breeder swine. With the ongoing trend of small farms (i.e., small businesses) providing local food, having a regulation in place to evaluate breeding stock for these entities is very beneficial. There have been no comments or complaints received from the public regarding this regulation. This regulation is not complex and does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. The last periodic review of the regulation was in 2011. There have been no changes to technology, economic conditions, or other factors that necessitate amending this regulation.

Contact Information: Michael Carpenter, Program Manager, Livestock Marketing Services; P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services conducted a small business impact review of 2VAC5-350, Rules and Regulations for the Enforcement of the Virginia Commission Merchant Law, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is publishing its report of findings dated October 19, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

The agency has determined that there is a continued need for this regulation. Tobacco auction warehouses that serve as agents for tobacco farmers on the basis of a fee or commission are required to obtain a license under the Commission Merchant Law (§ 3.2-4709 et seq. of the Code of Virginia). Many farms that grow tobacco are small businesses and the licensing and bonding of commission merchants and the requirements of this regulation, by which commission merchants must abide, provide protection to tobacco farmers by assuring prompt and accurate payment for their tobacco. There have been no complaints or comments received from the public regarding this regulation. The regulation is not complex and does not include any unnecessary or overly burdensome requirements with which small businesses must comply. This regulation does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. No significant changes to technology, economic conditions, or other factors have occurred since the previous periodic review of this regulation in 2011 that would necessitate modifications to this regulation. The agency recommends that the regulation stay in effect without change.

Contact Information: Larry Nichols, Director, Division of Consumer Protection; P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone (804) 786-3523, FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services conducted a small business impact review of 2VAC5-360, Regulations for the Enforcement of the Virginia Commercial Feed Act, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is publishing its report of findings dated October 22, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

This regulation establishes labeling requirements with which commercial feed manufacturers must comply. Many commercial feed purchasers are farmers who operate small businesses, and this regulation ensures that commercial feed available for purchase is properly formulated and labeled. The labeling requirements established in this regulation also assist commercial feed purchasers in determining whether a given feed will satisfy the nutritional needs of their animals. There have been no complaints or comments received from the public for this regulation. The regulation is not complex and does not include any unnecessary or overly burdensome requirements with which small businesses must comply. The regulation does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. No significant changes to technology, economic conditions, or other factors have occurred that would necessitate modifications to this regulation since the previous periodic review of this regulation in 2011. The agency recommends that the regulation stay in effect without change.

Contact Information: Larry Nichols, Director, Division of Consumer Protection; P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone (804) 786-3523, FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

BOARD FOR BARBERS AND COSMETOLOGY

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology conducted a small business impact review of 18VAC41-11, Public Participation Guidelines, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Board for Barbers and Cosmetology is publishing its report of findings dated November 6, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

Section 2.2-4007.02 of the Code of Virginia mandates the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology solicit the input of interested parties in the formation and development of its regulations. Therefore, the continued need for the regulation is established in statute. The regulation is necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare by establishing public participation guidelines, which promote public involvement in the development, amendment, or repeal of an agency's regulation. By soliciting the input of interested parties, the board is better equipped to effectively regulate the occupation or profession. Since no complaints or comments were received during the public comment period, there does not appear to be a reason to amend or repeal the regulation. The regulation is clearly written and easily understandable. The regulation does not overlap, duplicate, or contravene federal or state law or regulation. This is the first periodic review of the regulation since becoming effective in 2008. On November 2, 2015, the board reviewed the regulation and for the reasons stated determined that the regulation should not be amended or repealed but should be retained in its current form.

Contact Information: Demetrios J. Melis, Executive Director, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400, Richmond, VA 23233, telephone [phone], FAX (804) 527-4295, or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology conducted a small business impact review of 18VAC41-20, Barbering and Cosmetology Regulations, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Board for Barbers and Cosmetology is publishing its report of findings dated November 6, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

Section 54.1-201.5 of the Code of Virginia mandates the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology to promulgate regulations. The continued need for the regulation is established in statute. Repeal of the regulation would remove the current public protections provided by the regulation. The Board for Barbers and Cosmetology provides protection to the safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth by ensuring that only those individuals who meet specific criteria set forth in the statutes and regulations are eligible to receive a barber, cosmetology, or nail technician, instructor, salon, or school license, or temporary permit. The board is also tasked with ensuring that its regulants meet standards of practice that are set forth in the regulations.

The sole comment received during the public comment period supported the regulations and suggested a fee reduction. The regulation is clearly written, easily understandable, and does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. There is an ongoing general review of these regulations, started in response to the 2011 periodic review, currently in the proposed stage. On November 2, 2015, the board reviewed the regulation and for the reasons stated determined that the regulation should not be amended or repealed but should be retained in its current form.

Contact Information: Demetrios J. Melis, Executive Director, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400, Richmond, VA 23233, telephone [phone], FAX (804) 527-4295, or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology conducted a small business impact review of 18VAC41-40, Wax Technician Regulations, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Board for Barbers and Cosmetology is publishing its report of findings dated November 6, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

Section 54.1-201.5 of the Code of Virginia mandates the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology to promulgate regulations. The continued need for the regulation is established in statute. Repeal of the regulation would remove the current public protections provided by the regulation. The Board for Barbers and Cosmetology provides protection to the safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth by ensuring that only those individuals who meet specific criteria set forth in the statutes and regulations are eligible to receive a wax technician, instructor, salon, or school license, or temporary permit. The board is also tasked with ensuring that its regulants meet standards of practice that are set forth in the regulations.

Since no complaints or comments were received during the public comment period, there does not appear to be a reason to amend or repeal the regulation. The regulation is clearly written, easily understandable, and does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. There is an ongoing general review of these regulations currently in the proposed stage. On November 2, 2015, the board reviewed the regulation and for the reasons stated determined that the regulation should not be amended or repealed but should be retained in its current form.

Contact Information: Demetrios J. Melis, Executive Director, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400, Richmond, VA 23233, telephone [phone], FAX (804) 527-4295, or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology conducted a small business impact review of 18VAC41-50, Tattooing Regulations, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Board for Barbers and Cosmetology is publishing its report of findings dated November 6, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

Section 54.1-201.5 of the Code of Virginia mandates the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology to promulgate regulations. The continued need for the regulation is established in statute. Repeal of the regulation would remove the current public protections provided by the regulation. The Board for Barbers and Cosmetology provides protection to the safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth by ensuring that only those individuals who meet specific criteria set forth in the statutes and regulations are eligible to receive a tattooer, instructor, salon, or school license, or apprentice permit. The board is also tasked with ensuring that its regulants meet standards of practice that are set forth in the regulations.

Comments received during the public comment period revolved around a select few points, mainly the perceived lack of enforcement of unlicensed practice of tattooing and the differentiation of permanent cosmetic tattooing from tattooing. The regulation is clearly written, easily understandable, and does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. The most recent evaluation occurred in 2011. On November 2, 2015, the board reviewed the regulation and for the reasons stated determined that the regulation should not be amended or repealed but should be retained in its current form.

Contact Information: Demetrios J. Melis, Executive Director, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400, Richmond, VA 23233, telephone [phone], FAX (804) 527-4295, or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology conducted a small business impact review of 18VAC41-60, Body-Piercing Regulations, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Board for Barbers and Cosmetology is publishing its report of findings dated November 5, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

Section 54.1-201.5 of the Code of Virginia mandates the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology to promulgate regulations. The continued need for the regulation is established in statute. Repeal of the regulation would remove the current public protections provided by the regulation. The Board for Barbers and Cosmetology provides protection to the safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth by ensuring that only those individuals who meet specific criteria set forth in the statutes and regulations are eligible to receive a body-piercing and salon license or an apprenticeship permit. The board is also tasked with ensuring that its regulants meet standards of practice that are set forth in the regulations.

Since no complaints or comments were received during the public comment period, there does not appear to be a reason to amend or repeal the regulation. The regulation is clearly written, easily understandable, and does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. The most recent evaluation occurred in 2011. On November 2, 2015, the board reviewed the regulation and for the reasons stated determined that the regulation should not be amended or repealed but should be retained in its current form.

Contact Information: Demetrios J. Melis, Executive Director, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400, Richmond, VA 23233, telephone [phone], FAX (804) 527-4295, or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology conducted a small business impact review of 18VAC41-70, Esthetics Regulations, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Board for Barbers and Cosmetology is publishing its report of findings dated November 6, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

Section 54.1-201.5 of the Code of Virginia mandates the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology to promulgate regulations. The continued need for the regulation is established in statute. Repeal of the regulation would remove the current public protections provided by the regulation. The Board for Barbers and Cosmetology provides protection to the safety and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth by ensuring that only those individuals who meet specific criteria set forth in the statutes and regulations are eligible to receive an esthetics, master esthetics, instructor, spa, or school license, or temporary permit. The board is also tasked with ensuring that its regulants meet standards of practice that are set forth in the regulations.

The sole comment received during the public comment period supported the regulations and suggested a fee reduction. The regulation is clearly written, easily understandable, and does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. There is an ongoing general review of these regulations currently in the proposed stage. On November 2, 2015, the board reviewed the regulation and for the reasons determined that the regulation should not be amended or repealed but should be retained in its current form.

Contact Information: Demetrios J. Melis, Executive Director, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400, Richmond, VA 23233, telephone [phone], FAX (804) 527-4295, or email [e-mail].

DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

Renewal of Existing Variances to Regulations to Assure the Rights of Individuals Receiving Services from Providers Licensed, Funded, or Operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (12VAC35-115)

Nature of Action: The Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services sought comment on the applications submitted by five private providers for renewal of existing variances to the Regulations to Assure the Rights of Individuals Receiving Services from Providers Licensed, Funded, or Operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (12VAC35-115).

Agency Decision: The State Human Rights Committee voted on October 23, 2015, to approve the applications for variances from certain requirements of the Regulations to Assure the Rights of Individuals Receiving Services from Providers Licensed, Funded, or Operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (12VAC35-115), as listed below. 

Variance to Procedures to Ensure Dignity:

12VAC35-115-50 C 7 and C 8:

In order to maintain the safety and security of residents (youth) the programs restrict communication via telephone and visitation to only those placed on a list generated at admission by the parent/legal guardian and the resident.

1. Newport News Behavioral Health Center: The visitation list is generated by the Admissions Coordinator.

2. James Barry Robinson Center.

3. Kempsville Center for Behavioral Health: The Clinical Treatment Team is also involved in the creation of the list.

12VAC35-115-50 C 7 and C 8:

4. Virginia Beach Department of Human Services Residential Crisis Stabilization Program - The Recovery Center: Through the first phase of the program, individuals are limited from visits with family and friends, and phone calls are limited to five minutes per shift. There is no limitation on private communication with attorneys, judges, legislators, clergy, licensed health care practitioners, authorized representatives, advocates, the inspector general, or employees of the protection and advocacy agency.

Variance to Procedures for Restrictions on Freedoms of Everyday Life:

12VAC35-115-100 A 1 a and A 1 g: In order to utilize a point level system (Behavior Management Model) affecting movement of an individual within the service setting (grounds, community, purchases in program store).

1. Harbor Point Behavioral Health Center.

2. Kempsville Center for Behavioral Health: Requiring an individual earn points through a level system in order to access the store.

Variance to Procedures for Use of Seclusion, Restraint, and Time Out

12VAC35-115-110 C 16: In order to utilize Time Out as part of the Unit Restriction policy.

1. Kempsville Center for Behavioral Health: At times deemed necessary due to unsafe behaviors, to provide additional safety and security measures by preventing movement by an individual from their assigned unit for periods longer than 30 minutes.

Variances to these regulations by the providers listed above are reviewed by the State Human Rights Committee (SHRC) at least annually, with reports to the SHRC regarding the variances as requested.

Contact Information: Deborah Lochart, Director, Office of Human Rights, Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, 1220 East Bank Street, P.O. Box 1797, Richmond, VA 23218-1797, telephone (804) 786-0032, FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Proposed Renewal of Variances to Rules and Regulations to Assure the Rights of Individuals Receiving Services from Providers Licensed, Funded, or Operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (12VAC35-115)

Notice of action: The Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS), in accordance with Part VI, Variances (12VAC35-115-220 et seq.), of the Regulations to Assure the Rights of Individuals Receiving Services from Providers of Licensed, Funded, or Operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (12VAC35-115), hereafter referred to as the "Human Rights Regulations," is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the applications for proposed renewal of existing variances to the Human Rights Regulations. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure and protect the legal and human rights of individuals receiving services in facilities or programs operated, licensed, or funded by DBHDS.

Each variance application references the specific part of these regulations to which a variance is needed, the proposed wording of the substitute rule or procedure, and the justification for a variance. Such application also describes time limits and other conditions for duration and the circumstances that will end the applicability of the variance. After considering all available information including comments, DBHDS intends to submit a written decision deferring, disapproving, modifying, or approving each variance renewal application. All variances shall be approved for a specific time period. The decision and reasons for variance will be published in a later issue of the Virginia Register of Regulations.

Purpose of notice: DBHDS is seeking comment on the application for proposed new variances to the Human Rights Regulations for the maximum security forensic unit at DBHDS' Central State Hospital (CSH). Rather than the Local Human Rights Committee (LHRC), the formal complaint resolution process would be the responsibility of the Maximum Security Appeals Committee. The population in the maximum security unit typically has a shorter length of stay, and most of them are admitted from and discharged to the criminal justice system. The individuals are better protected by a complaint process that moves at a more rapid pace than the process provided in the Human Rights Regulations. The procedures for addressing patient complaints within the unit would be maintained in CSH Policy RTS-01C.  For these reasons, variances are proposed to the regulations listed below would not be applicable to the hospital maximum security forensic unit.

Variance to Procedures to Ensure Dignity:

12VAC35-115-50 D 3 e (5): Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation

"If the individual affected by the alleged abuse, neglect, or exploitation or his authorized representative is not satisfied with the director's actions, he or his authorized representative, or anyone acting on his behalf, may file an appeal to the Central State Hospital Maximum Security Appeals Committee."

Explanation: This proposed language would direct the individual or authorized representative to the Maximum Security Appeals Committee rather than the Local Human Rights Committee. The individuals are better protected by a complaint process that moves at a more rapid pace than the process provided in the Human Rights Regulations.

Variance to Procedures to Ensure Access to Appropriate Services:

12VAC35-115-60 B 1 d:

"If the individual or his authorized representative is not satisfied with the director's decision or action, he may file an appeal to the Central State Hospital Maximum Security Appeals Committee."

Explanation: This proposed language would direct the individual or authorized representative to the Maximum Security Appeals Committee rather than the Local Human Rights Committee.

Variance to Procedures to Ensure a Fair Hearing of Complaints:

12VAC35-115-140 A 2 and A 4:

"2. Have a timely and fair review of any complaint according to the procedures in CSH Policy RTS-01C Patient and Family Complaint Resolution."

"4. Use this and other complaint procedures; and"

Explanation: This proposed language would direct patients, treatment teams, and authorized representatives to CSH policy describing the Maximum Security Appeals Committee, as opposed to the LHRC as outlined in the state human rights regulations.

Variances to Procedures for Complaint Resolution, Hearing, and Appeals

12VAC35-115-150: General Provisions

"A resident who has followed the procedures of CSH RTS-01C Patient and Family Complaint Resolution, and is not satisfied with the CSH Director's response may appeal the decision to the CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee. The CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee shall review the appeal and provide a written response within 21 days. If the complaint is determined by the Appeals Committee to be a founded complaint, the response, which includes recommendations outlining how the complaint should be resolved, shall be forwarded to the director for resolution.  A copy shall be sent to the human rights advocate.  This is the final level of appeal."

Explanation: This proposed language explains the function of the Maximum Security Appeals Committee and the time for turnaround of responses. It also makes clear there is no additional level of appeal.

12VAC35-115-170: Formal Complaint Process

"A. Anyone who believes that the provider has violated an individual's rights under these regulations may report it to the director or the human rights advocate for resolution.

1. If the report is made only to the director, the director or his designee shall immediately notify the human rights advocate. If the report is made on a weekend or holiday, then the director or his designee shall notify the human rights advocate on the next business day.

2. If the report is made to the human rights advocate, the human rights advocate shall immediately notify the director. If the report is made on a weekend or holiday, the human rights advocate shall notify the director on the next business day.

3. The human rights advocate or the director or his designee shall discuss the report with the individual and notify the individual of his right to pursue a complaint through the process established for individuals.  The steps established shall be thoroughly explained to the individual. The human rights advocate or the director or his designee shall ask the individual if he understands the complaint process and the choice that he has before asking the individual how he wishes to purse the complaint. The individual shall then be given the choice of pursuing the complaint through the established complaint process.

4. The procedures outlined in CSH Policy RTS-01C, Patient and Family Complaint Resolution, shall be followed if a complaint is pursued.

B. If at any time during the complaint process the human rights advocate concludes there is substantial risk that serious or irreparable harm will result if the complaint is not resolved immediately, the human rights advocate shall inform the director and the CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee by informing the director and the DBHDS Director of Human Rights. The CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee shall review the issue within 72 hours of receiving this information."

Explanation: These proposed language changes are necessary to direct the reader to CSH policy rather than the human rights regulations as regards the complaint process for individuals in maximum security. They also make clear the amount of time the Maximum Security Appeals Committee has to review the information.

12VAC35-115-180: Local Human Rights Committee Hearing and Review Procedures

"A. Any individual or his authorized representative who does not accept the relief offered by the director or disagrees with (i) a director's final decision and action plan resulting from the complaint resolution; (ii) a director's final action following a report of abuse, neglect, or exploitation; or (iii) a director's final decision following a complaint of discrimination in the provision of services may request a review by the CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee.

B. The individual or his authorized representative must file the request for review by the CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee within ten days of the director's action or final decision on the complaint.

1. The appeal request must be in writing on the form designated by CSH Policy RTS-01C Patient and Family Complaint Resolution. It should contain all facts and arguments surrounding the complaint and reference any section of the regulations that the individual believes the provider violated.

2. The human rights advocate and any individual other than another resident of CSH may help the individual in filing the appeal. If the individual chooses a person other than the human rights advocate to help him, he and his chosen representative may request the human rights advocate's assistance in filing the appeal.

C. The CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee shall review the appeal and provide a written response within 21days. If the complaint is determined by the Appeals Committee to be a founded complaint, the response, which includes recommendations outlining how the complaint should be resolved, shall be forwarded to the director for resolution. A copy shall be sent to the human rights advocate. This is the final level of appeal."

Explanation: These proposed changes outline the exact procedures an individual in maximum security would follow to appeal a director's decision, and the timeline on which it must happen.

12VAC35-115-190: Special Procedures for Emergency Hearing by LHRC

"A. If the human rights advocate informs the CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee of a substantial risk that serious and irreparable harm will result if a complaint is not resolved immediately, the CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee shall review the issue within 72 hours of receiving the information.

1. The director or his designee and the human rights advocate shall be available to discuss the issue with the CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee.

2. The review shall be concluded on an expedited basis.

B. At the end of the review, the CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee shall make preliminary findings, and if a violation is found, shall make preliminary recommendations to the director.

C. The director shall formulate and carry out an action plan within 24 hours of receiving the CSH Maximum Security Appeal Committee's recommendations. A copy of the plan shall be sent to the human rights advocate, the individual, and his authorized representative."

Explanation: These proposed changes make available an avenue for emergency consideration by the Maximum Security Appeals Committee in the event a human rights advocate has cause to believe there is risk of serious and irreparable harm if a complaint is not resolved immediately.

12VAC35-115-200: Involving Consent and Authorization

"A. The individual, his authorized representative, or anyone acting on the individual's behalf may request in writing that the CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee review the following situations and issue a decision:

1. If an individual or his authorized representative objects at any time to the appointment of a specific person as authorized representative or any decision for which consent or authorization is required and has been given by his authorized representative, other than a legal guardian, he may ask the Appeals Committee to decide whether his capacity was properly evaluated, the authorized representative was properly appointed, or his authorized representative's decision was made based on the individual's basic values and any preferences previously expressed by the individual to the extent that they are known, and if unknown or unclear in the individual's best interests.

i. The provider shall take no action for which consent or authorization is required if the individual objects, except in an emergency or as otherwise permitted by law, pending the Appeals Committee review.

ii. If the Appeals Committee determines that the individual's capacity was properly evaluated, the authorized representative is properly designated, or the authorized representative's decision was made based on the individual's basic values and any preferences previously expressed by the individual to the extent that they are known, or if unknown or unclear in the individual's best interests, then the provider may proceed according to the decision of the authorized representative.

iii. If the Appeals Committee determines that the individual's capacity was not properly evaluated or the authorized representative was not properly designated, then the provider shall take no action for which consent is required except in an emergency or as otherwise required or permitted by law, until the capacity review and authorized representative designation is properly done.

iv. If the Appeals Committee determines that the authorized representative's decision was not made based on the individual's basic values and any preferences previously expressed by the individual to the extent known, and if unknown or unclear, in the individual's best interests, then the provider shall take steps to remove the authorized representative pursuant to 12VAC35-115-146.

2. If an individual or his family member has obtained an independent evaluation of the individual's capacity to consent to treatment or services or to participate in human research under 12VAC35-115-70, or authorize the disclosure of information under 12VAC35-115-90, and the opinion of that evaluator conflicts with the opinion of the provider's evaluator, the Appeals Committee may be requested to decide which evaluation will control.

i. If the Appeals Committee agrees that the individual lacks the capacity to consent to treatment or services or authorize disclosure of information, the director may begin or continue treatment or research or disclose information, but only with the appropriate consent or authorization of the authorized representative. 

ii. If the Appeals Committee does not agree that the individual lacks the capacity to consent to treatment or services or authorize disclosure of information, the director shall not begin any treatment or research, or disclose information without the individual's consent or authorization, or shall take immediate steps to discontinue any actions begun without the consent or authorization of the individual.

3. If the director makes a decision that affects an individual and the individual believes that the decision requires his personal consent or authorization or that of his authorized representative, he may object and ask the Appeals Committee to decide whether consent or authorization is required. Regardless of the individual's capacity to consent to treatment or services or authorize disclosure of information, if the Appeals Committee determines that a decision made by a director requires consent or authorization that was not obtained, the director shall immediately rescind the action unless and until such consent or authorization is obtained.

B. Before making such a decision, the Appeals Committee shall review the action proposed by the director, any determination of lack of capacity, the opinion of the independent evaluator if applicable, and the individual's or his authorized representative's reasons for objecting to that determination. To facilitate its review, the Appeals Committee may ask that a physician or licensed clinical psychologist not employed by the provider evaluate the individual at the provider's expense and give an opinion about his capacity to consent to treatment or authorize information. The Appeals Committee shall notify all parties and the human rights advocate of the decision within 10 working days of the initial request."

Explanation: These proposed changes substitute the Maximum Security Appeals Committee for the Local Human Rights Committee as the review body regarding issues of informed consent and substitute decision-making.

12VAC35-115-210: State Human Rights Committee Appeals Procedure

"Decisions of the CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee may not be appealed."

Explanation: The CSH Maximum Security Appeals Committee is the full deciding body.

Variances to these regulations by the providers listed above are reviewed by the SHRC at least annually, with reports to the SHRC regarding the variances as requested.

Public comment period: November 30, 2015, through December 30, 2015.

Description of proposal: The proposed variance applications for renewal must comply with the general requirements of Part VI, Variances (12VAC35-115-220 et seq.), of the Human Rights Regulations.

How to comment: DBHDS accepts written comments by email, fax, and postal mail. In order to be considered, comments must include the full name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting and be received by DBHDS by the last day of the comment period. All information received is part of the public record.

To review a proposal: Variance applications and any supporting documentation may be obtained by contacting the DBHDS representative named below.

Contact Information: Deborah Lochart, Director, Office of Human Rights, Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, 1220 East Bank Street, P.O. Box 1797, Richmond, VA 23218-1797, telephone (804) 786-0032, FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

CHARITABLE GAMING BOARD

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Charitable Gaming Board conducted a small business impact review of 11VAC15-13, Public Participation Guidelines, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Charitable Gaming Board is publishing its report of findings dated October 19, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

The regulation is necessary in order to execute the purpose of the Charitable Gaming Regulations (11VAC15-40). The board routinely reviews its regulations and adopts amendments as necessary. The public, including small businesses, needs to be informed of the various stages of the regulatory process and their statutory right to participate. There have been no complaints or comments received from the public concerning this regulation. The regulation is not particularly complex, and it does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. Since this regulation's adoption in 2008, there have not been significant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors that would necessitate amending this regulation.

Contact Information: Michael Menefee, Program Manager, Office of Charitable and Regulatory Programs, P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

BOARD OF PHARMACY

Notice of Periodic Review and Small Business Impact Review

Pursuant to Executive Order 17 (2014) and §§ 2.2-4007.1 and 2.2-4017 of the Code of Virginia, the Board of Pharmacy is conducting a periodic review and small business impact review of 18VAC110-20, Regulations Governing the Practice of Pharmacy, and 18VAC110-50, Regulations Governing Wholesale Distributors, Manufacturers, and Warehousers.

The review of each regulation will be guided by the principles in Executive Order 17 (2014). The purpose of this review is to determine whether each regulation should be repealed, amended, or retained in its current form. Public comment is sought on the review of any issue relating to each regulation, including whether the regulation (i) is necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare or for the economical performance of important governmental functions; (ii) minimizes the economic impact on small businesses in a manner consistent with the stated objectives of applicable law; and (iii) is clearly written and easily understandable.

The comment period begins November 30, 2015, and ends December 30, 2015.

Comments may be submitted online to the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall at http://www.townhall.virginia.gov/L/Forums.cfm. Comments may also be sent to Elaine Yeatts, Agency Regulatory Coordinator, Department of Health Professions, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 300, Richmond, VA 23233, FAX (804) 527-4434, or email [e-mail].

Comments must include the commenter's name and address (physical or email) information in order to receive a response to the comment from the agency. Following the close of the public comment period, a report of both reviews will be posted on the Town Hall and a report of the small business impact review will be published in the Virginia Register of Regulations.

REAL ESTATE BOARD

Notice of Periodic Review and Small Business Impact Review

Pursuant to Executive Order 17 (2014) and §§ 2.2-4007.1 and 2.2-4017 of the Code of Virginia, the Real Estate Board is currently reviewing each of the regulations listed below to determine whether the regulation should be repealed, amended, or retained in its current form. The review of each regulation will be guided by the principles in Executive Order 17 (2014). Public comment is sought on the review of any issue relating to each regulation, including whether the regulation (i) is necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare or for the economical performance of important governmental functions; (ii) minimizes the economic impact on small businesses in a manner consistent with the stated objectives of applicable law; and (iii) is clearly written and easily understandable.

18VAC135-11, Public Participation Guidelines

18VAC135-20, Virginia Real Estate Board Licensing Regulations

18VAC135-50, Fair Housing Regulations

The comment period begins November 30, 2015, and ends December 21, 2015.

Comments must include the commenter's name and address (physical or email) information in order to receive a response to the comment from the agency. Following the close of the public comment period, a report of both reviews will be posted on the Town Hall, and a report of the small business impact review will be published in the Virginia Register of Regulations.

Contact Information: Christine Martine, Executive Director, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400, Richmond, VA 23233, telephone [phone], FAX (866) 826-8863, or email [e-mail].

SAFETY AND HEALTH CODES BOARD

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Safety and Health Codes Board conducted a small business impact review of 16VAC25-55, Financial Requirements for Boiler and Pressure Vessel Contract Fee Inspectors, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Safety and Health Codes Board is publishing its report of findings dated October 30, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

In its review of this regulation, the agency has determined that there is a continued need for the regulation because it ensures a minimum level of indemnification in cases involving bodily injury and property damage resulting from, or directly relating to, a contract fee inspector's negligent inspection or recommendation for certification of a boiler or pressure vessel. The regulatory language is clear and avoids complexity. This regulation, which became effective in 2007, does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. The current review follows the first periodic review of regulation, which was conducted four years ago. There have not been significant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors in the area affected by the regulation since it became effective. The agency has determined that retaining the regulation without amendment is consistent with the stated objectives of applicable law and is the most effective way to minimize the economic impact of regulations on small businesses.

Contact Information: Reba O'Connor, Regulatory Coordinator, Virginia Department of Labor and Industry, 600 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219, or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Safety and Health Codes Board conducted a small business impact review of 16VAC25-73, Regulation Applicable to Tree Trimming Operations, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Safety and Health Codes Board is publishing its report of findings dated October 30, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

In its review of this regulation, the agency has determined that there is a continued need for the regulation because it is an enforcement tool that has been designed specifically for the tree trimming operations that are conducted by the arborist industry and because spokespersons within that industry specifically requested that the department promulgate a regulation to specifically cover tree trimming operations. No comments or complaints were received from the public during the public comment period. The regulatory language is clear and avoids complexity. This regulation, which became effective in 2011, does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. The current review is the first periodic review to evaluate the regulation. There have not been significant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors in the area affected by the regulation since it became effective. The agency has determined that retaining the regulation without amendment is consistent with the stated objectives of applicable law and is the most effective way to minimize the economic impact of regulations on small businesses.

Contact Information: Reba O'Connor, Regulatory Coordinator, Virginia Department of Labor and Industry, 600 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219, or email [e-mail].

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Safety and Health Codes Board conducted a small business impact review of 16VAC25-75, General Industry Standard for Telecommunications, General, Approach Distances, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The Safety and Health Codes Board is publishing its report of findings dated October 30, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

There is a continued need for this regulation because the establishment of less stringent compliance requirements in the past directly resulted in fatal electrocution hazards for employees. The regulation is not unnecessarily complex. It ensures uniformity of the regulations for general industry, construction, and telecommunication workers performing the same type of electrical transmission work. The regulation does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. The current review follows the first periodic review of the regulation, which occurred four years ago. There have not been significant changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors in the area affected by the regulation since it became effective. The agency has determined that retaining the regulation without amendment is consistent with the stated objectives of applicable law and is the most effective way to minimize the economic impact of regulations on small businesses.

Prior to the promulgation of this regulation, employers were already required to train telecommunication electrical transmission workers on methods of de-energizing, isolating, or insulating themselves from live electrical parts by using blankets or other protective measures listed in 16VAC25-90-1910.268. This regulation simplified compliance by making telecommunications requirements identical to 16VAC25-90-1910.269(l)(2)(i), General Industry Standard for Electric Power Generation Transmission and Distribution, and by providing safety protections for telecommunications workers equal to those afforded general industry electrical transmission workers and construction industry workers (see 16VAC25-155). In compliance with federal law, the regulation does not exempt small businesses from all or any part of these requirements. However, the language of the regulation was drafted in such a way as to minimize costs for regulated employers while still ensuring equivalent safety levels of electrical shock protection for telecommunications workers.

Contact Information: Reba O'Connor, Regulatory Coordinator, Virginia Department of Labor and Industry, 600 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219, or email [e-mail].

STATE MILK COMMISSION

Small Business Impact Review - Report of Findings

Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, the State Milk Commission conducted a small business impact review of 2VAC15-12, Public Participation Guidelines, and determined that this regulation should be retained in its current form. The State Milk Commission is publishing its report of findings dated October 28, 2015, to support this decision in accordance with § 2.2-4007.1 F of the Code of Virginia.

The agency determined this regulation continues to be necessary as it is required by § 2.2-4007.02 of the Code of Virginia and establishes the mechanisms by which the agency will advise the public of the agency's regulatory actions. The agency has not received any comments or complaints regarding this regulation. The regulation is not complex and is easily understood. The regulation does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with federal or state law or regulation. The regulation was promulgated in 2008 using the model public participation guidelines issued by the Department of Planning and Budget. This periodic review is the first evaluation of this regulation subsequent to its adoption in 2008. No factors have changed since 2008 that necessitate amending this regulation. This regulation places no economic burden on any small business.

Contact Information: Crafton Wilkes, Administrator, State Milk Commission, P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone (804) 786-2013, FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD

Proposed Enforcement Action for Buchanan County PSA

An enforcement action has been proposed for the Buchanan County PSA for violations of the State Water Control Law at the Conaway Wastewater Treatment Plant in Buchanan County. A description of the proposed action is available at the Department of Environmental Quality office named below or online at www.deq.virginia.gov. Ralph T. Hilt will accept comments by email at [e-mail], FAX at [phone], or postal mail at Department of Environmental Quality, Southwest Regional Office, 355-A Deadmore Street, Abingdon, VA 24210, from December 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015.

Proposed Enforcement Action for Town of Pound

An enforcement action has been proposed for the Town of Pound for violations of the State Water Control Law at the Pound Wastewater Treatment Plant in Wise County. A description of the proposed action is available at the Department of Environmental Quality office named below or online at www.deq.virginia.gov. Ralph T. Hilt will accept comments by email at [e-mail], FAX at [phone], or postal mail at Department of Environmental Quality, Southwest Regional Office, 355-A Deadmore Street, Abingdon, VA 24210, from December 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015.

BOARD FOR WATERWORKS AND WASTEWATER WORKS OPERATORS AND ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEM PROFESSIONALS

Notice of Periodic Review and Small Business Impact Review

Pursuant to Executive Order 17 (2014) and §§ 2.2-4007.1 and 2.2-4017 of the Code of Virginia, the Board for Waterworks and Wastewater Works Operators and Onsite Sewage System Professionals is currently reviewing each of the regulations listed below to determine whether the regulation should be repealed, amended, or retained in its current form. The review of each regulation will be guided by the principles in Executive Order 17 (2014). Public comment is sought on the review of any issue relating to each regulation, including whether the regulation (i) is necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare or for the economical performance of important governmental functions; (ii) minimizes the economic impact on small businesses in a manner consistent with the stated objectives of applicable law; and (iii) is clearly written and easily understandable.

18VAC160-11, Public Participation Guidelines

18VAC160-20, Board for Waterworks and Wastewater Works Operators and Onsite Sewage System Professionals Regulations

The comment period begins November 30, 2015, and ends December 21, 2015.

Comments must include the commenter's name and address (physical or email) information in order to receive a response to the comment from the agency. Following the close of the public comment period, a report of both reviews will be posted on the Town Hall, and a report of the small business impact review will be published in the Virginia Register of Regulations.

Contact Information: Trisha Henshaw, Executive Director, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400, Richmond, VA 23233, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

VIRGINIA CODE COMMISSION

Notice to State Agencies

Contact Information: Mailing Address: Virginia Code Commission, General Assembly Building, 201 North 9th Street, 2nd Floor, Richmond, VA 23219; Telephone: Voice [phone]; Email: [e-mail].

Meeting Notices: Section 2.2-3707 C of the Code of Virginia requires state agencies to post meeting notices on their websites and on the Commonwealth Calendar at http://www.virginia.gov/connect/commonwealth-calendar.

Cumulative Table of Virginia Administrative Code Sections Adopted, Amended, or Repealed: A table listing regulation sections that have been amended, added, or repealed in the Virginia Register of Regulations since the regulations were originally published or last supplemented in the print version of the Virginia Administrative Code is available at http://register.dls.virginia.gov/documents/cumultab.pdf.

Filing Material for Publication in the Virginia Register of Regulations: Agencies use the Regulation Information System (RIS) to file regulations and related items for publication in the Virginia Register of Regulations. The Registrar's office works closely with the Department of Planning and Budget (DPB) to coordinate the system with the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall. RIS and Town Hall complement and enhance one another by sharing pertinent regulatory information.

ERRATA

STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION

Title of Regulation: 14VAC5-270. Rules Governing Annual Financial Reporting.

Publication: 32:4 VA.R. 479-485 October 19, 2015.

Correction to Proposed Regulation:

Beginning on page 480, column 1, replace the Order to Take Notice with the following order:

AT RICHMOND, SEPTEMBER 21, 2015

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex rel.

STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION

CASE NO. INS-2015-00141

Ex Parte: In the matter of
Amending the Rules Governing
Annual Financial Reporting

ORDER TO TAKE NOTICE

Section 12.1-13 of the Code of Virginia ("Code") provides that the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") shall have the power to promulgate rules and regulations in the enforcement and administration of all laws within its jurisdiction, and § 38.2-223 of the Code provides that the Commission may issue any rules and regulations necessary or appropriate for the administration and enforcement of Title 38.2 of the Code.

The rules and regulations issued by the Commission pursuant to § 38.2-223 of the Code are set forth in Title 14 of the Virginia Administrative Code.  A copy may also be found at the Commission's website: http://www.scc.virginia.gov/boi/laws.aspx.

The Bureau of Insurance ("Bureau") has submitted to the Commission proposed amendments to rules set forth in Chapter 270 of Title 14 of the Virginia Administrative Code entitled Rules Governing Annual Financial Reporting ("Rules"), which amend the Rules at 14 VAC 5-270-40, 14 VAC 5-270-100, 14 VAC 5-270-110, 14 VAC 5-270-120, 14 VAC 5-270-144, and 14 VAC 5-270-174, and adds a new Rule at 14 VAC 5-270-145.

The amendments to the Rules are being proposed due to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' adoption of the revisions to the Annual Financial Reporting Model Regulation. The proposed amendments provide the Commission with the authority to require all insurers with annual premiums exceeding $500 million and insurance groups with annual premiums exceeding $1 billion to maintain an internal audit function that provides independent, objective, and reasonable assurance to the audit committee and management regarding the insurer's governance, risk management, and internal controls.  The internal audit function is required to be organizationally independent from management and to report at least annually to the audit committee on the results of internal audit activities.

NOW THE COMMISSION is of the opinion that the proposed amendments submitted by the Bureau to amend the Rules at 14 VAC 5-270-40, 14 VAC 5-270-100, 14 VAC 5-270-110, 14 VAC 5-270-120, 14 VAC 5-270-144, and 14 VAC 5-270-174, and add a new Rule at 14 VAC 5-270-145 should be considered for adoption.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The proposed amendments to Rules Governing Annual Financial Reporting, which amend the Rules at 14 VAC 5-270-40, 14 VAC 5-270-100, 14 VAC 5-270-110, 14 VAC 5-270-120, 14 VAC 5-270-144, and 14 VAC 5-270-174, and add a new Rule at 14 VAC 5-270-145 are attached hereto and made a part hereof.

(2) All interested persons who desire to comment in support of or in opposition to, or request a hearing to oppose amending Chapter 270 of Title 14 of the Virginia Administrative Code, shall file such comments or hearing request on or before November 18, 2015, with Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218. Interested persons desiring to submit comments electronically may do so by following the instructions at the Commission's website: http://www.scc.virginia.gov/case/PublicComments.aspx. All comments shall refer to Case No. INS-2015-00141.

(3) If no written request for a hearing on the proposal to amend Chapter 270 of Title 14 of the Virginia Administrative Code is received on or before November 18, 2015, the Commission, upon consideration of any comments submitted in support of or in opposition to the proposal, may amend the Rules.

(4) The Bureau forthwith shall give further notice of the proposal to amend rules by mailing a copy of this Order, together with the proposal, to all licensed insurers, burial societies, fraternal benefit societies, health service plans, health maintenance organizations, legal services plans, dental or optometric services plans, and dental plan organizations authorized by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Title 38.2 of the Code, as well as to all interested parties.  To be made part of this list, call [phone].

(5) The Commission's Division of Information Resources forthwith shall cause a copy of this Order, together with the proposal to amend rules, to be forwarded to the Virginia Registrar of Regulations for appropriate publication in the Virginia Register of Regulations.

(6) The Commission's Division of Information Resources shall make available this Order and the attached proposed amendments to the rules on the Commission's website: http://www.scc.virginia.gov/case.

(7) The Bureau shall file with the Clerk of the Commission an affidavit of compliance with the notice requirements of Ordering Paragraph (4) above.

(8) This matter is continued.

AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to: Kiva Bland Pierce, Assistant Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, Second Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219; and a copy hereof shall be delivered to the Commission's Office of General Counsel and the Bureau of Insurance in care of Deputy Commissioner Douglas C. Stolte.

VA.R. Doc. No.R16-4479; Filed October 30, 2015, 10:25 a.m.

BOARD OF DENTISTRY

Title of Regulation: 18VAC60-21. Regulations Governing the Practice of Dentistry.

Publication: 32:5 VA.R. 706-742 November 2, 2015.

Correction to Final Regulation:

Page 533, 18VAC60-21-190 A 1, line 2, delete ", dental hygiene degree or certificate,"

VA.R. Doc. No. R10-2362; Filed November 9, 2015, 2:39 p.m.