6VAC20-30 Rules Relating to Compulsory In-Service Training Standards for Law-Enforcement Officers, Jailors or Custodial Officers, Courtroom Security Officers, Process Server Officers and Officers of the Department of Corrections, Division of ...

REGULATIONS

Vol. 29 Iss. 5 - November 05, 2012

TITLE 6. CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONS

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES BOARD

Chapter 30

Fast-Track Regulation

Title of Regulation: 6VAC20-30. Rules Relating to Compulsory In-Service Training Standards for Law-Enforcement Officers, Jailors or Custodial Officers, Courtroom Security Officers, Process Server Officers and Officers of the Department of Corrections, Division of Operations  (amending 6VAC20-30-80).

Statutory Authority: § 9.1-102 of the Code of Virginia.

Public Hearing Information: No public hearings are scheduled.

Public Comment Deadline: December 5, 2012.

Effective Date: December 20, 2012.

Agency Contact: Stephanie Morton, Law Enforcement Program Coordinator, Department of Criminal Justice Services, 1100 Bank Street, Richmond, VA 23219, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Basis: Section 9.1-102 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the Department of Criminal Justice Services to promulgate regulations on in-service training.

Purpose: The courses of fire for annual requalification of all criminal justice personnel who are required to recertify are periodically reviewed and need to be updated. Approval for all other changes to training standards is authorized by the Committee on Training of the Criminal Justice Services Board. The proposed amendments make this regulation consistent with the other regulations that impact the training of criminal justice personnel statewide.

Rationale for Using Fast-Track Process: The proposed changes are administrative and clean up the regulation. The specifics of the courses of fire do not need to be listed within the regulation. These are reviewed periodically and if changes to these are needed, such changes are more properly reviewed and approved by the Committee on Training of the Criminal Justice Services Board.

Substance: The regulation is amended to (i) reflect changes already made to the courses of fire for entry-level training and make this consistent in the in-service rules; (ii) remove the specifics regarding rounds and distance since these are contained in the actual course of fire; and (iii) reflect the name of the approved course of fire and remove the specifics on targets, rounds, scoring, and instructions since these are contained in the actual course of fire.

Issues: The advantage of the amendments for criminal justice personnel is to have courses of fire that can be reviewed more frequently and approved by a knowledgeable body with oversight responsibility for criminal justice training without having to go through an extensive and time-consuming regulatory process for needed changes in training. There are no disadvantages since the oversight committee is composed of knowledgably and experienced persons appointed by the Governor to serve through the Criminal Justice Services Board.

Department of Planning and Budget's Economic Impact Analysis:

Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Regulation. The Criminal Justice Services Board proposes to 1) authorize the Committee on Training of the Board to approve the courses of fire used by officers for annual recertification, 2) remove the specific number of rounds from the rules, and 3) remove the specifics listed in the in-service requirement for officers of the Department of Corrections.

Result of Analysis. The benefits likely exceed the costs for all proposed changes.

Estimated Economic Impact. The Criminal Justice Services Board (Board) proposes to 1) authorize the Committee on Training of the Board to approve the courses of fire used by officers for annual recertification, 2) remove the specific number of rounds from the rules, and 3) remove the specifics listed in the in-service requirement for officers of the Department of Corrections.

A separate regulatory action effective January 2010¹ moved the authority to set performance outcomes for entry level training to the Committee on Training so that they will be responsible for setting and amending all parts of the training standards. This proposed change makes the language in this part of the regulation consistent with entry level training rules currently in effect. This change will likely streamline the process of considering recertification standards so that new rules take less time to consider.

The proposed changes also remove the specifics (rounds, times, hands, targets) of in-service firearms training courses from regulations. According to the Department of Criminal Justice Services, the Committee on Training is made up of experts in firearms training who qualify to instruct firearms courses and who have the experience and qualifications to supervise such training knowing what outcomes are needed. They are also members of the Board. The specifics of the courses will be included in curriculum for the courses and will be available for interested parties. This change will allow the Committee on Training to change the specifics of the courses without having to go through the regulatory review process. Given that the Committee on Training is made up of the members of the Board and they are qualified to establish course specifics, regulated entities will likely benefit from the proposed changes.

Businesses and Entities Affected. The proposed regulations establish in-service training rules for law-enforcement officers, jailors or custodial officers, courtroom security officers, process service officers, and Department of Corrections officers. There are approximately 400 law enforcement agencies and training entities in the Commonwealth and approximately 35,382 officers annually recertify for firearms.

Localities Particularly Affected. No locality will be particularly affected by this proposed regulatory action.

Projected Impact on Employment. This regulatory action will likely have no impact on employment in the Commonwealth.

Effects on the Use and Value of Private Property. This regulatory action will likely have no effect on the use or value of private property in the Commonwealth.

Small Businesses: Costs and Other Effects. Small businesses in the Commonwealth are unlikely to incur any costs due to this regulatory action.

Small Businesses: Alternative Method that Minimizes Adverse Impact. Small businesses in the Commonwealth are unlikely to incur any costs or other adverse effects due to this regulatory action.

Real Estate Development Costs. This regulatory action will likely have no effect on real estate development costs in the Commonwealth.

Legal Mandate. The Department of Planning and Budget (DPB) has analyzed the economic impact of this proposed regulation in accordance with § 2.2-4007.04 of the Administrative Process Act and Executive Order Number 14 (10). Section 2.2-4007.04 requires that such economic impact analyses include, but need not be limited to, the projected number of businesses or other entities to whom the regulation would apply, the identity of any localities and types of businesses or other entities particularly affected, the projected number of persons and employment positions to be affected, the projected costs to affected businesses or entities to implement or comply with the regulation, and the impact on the use and value of private property. Further, if the proposed regulation has adverse effect on small businesses, § 2.2-4007.04 requires that such economic impact analyses include (i) an identification and estimate of the number of small businesses subject to the regulation; (ii) the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other administrative costs required for small businesses to comply with the regulation, including the type of professional skills necessary for preparing required reports and other documents; (iii) a statement of the probable effect of the regulation on affected small businesses; and (iv) a description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the purpose of the regulation. The analysis presented above represents DPB's best estimate of these economic impacts.

_____________________________

¹ See proposed changes to 6 VAC 20-20

Agency's Response to Economic Impact Analysis: The Department of Criminal Justice Services concurs generally with the economic impact analysis (EIA) of the Department of Planning and Budget on the proposed Regulations Relating to Compulsory In-Service Training Standards for Law-Enforcement Officers, Jailors or Custodial Officers, Courtroom Security Officers, Process Service Officers and Officers of the Department of Corrections, Division of Operations.

Summary:

The amendments (i) authorize the Committee on Training of the Board of Corrections to approve the courses of fire used by officers for annual recertification and (ii) remove the specifics, such as number of rounds, from the in-service firearms training courses.

6VAC20-30-80. Firearms training.

Every criminal justice officer required to carry a firearm in the performance of duty shall qualify annually using the applicable firearms course set forth below approved by the Committee on Training of the board. Annual range qualification shall include a review of issues/policy relating to weapons safety, nomenclature, maintenance and use of force. With prior approval of the director, a reasonable modification of the firearms course may be approved to accommodate qualification on indoor ranges. No minimum number of hours is required.

A. Law-enforcement officers, jailors or custodial officers, courtroom security officers and process service officers shall qualify annually with a minimum passing score of 70% on one of the following courses:

1. Virginia Modified Double Action Course for Semi-Automatic Pistols and Revolvers, 60 rounds, 7, 15, 25 yards shooting.

2. Virginia Modified Double Action Course for Semi-automatic Pistols, 60 rounds, 7, 15, 25 yards shooting.

3. 2. Virginia Modified Combat Course I, 60 rounds, 25, 15, 7 yards shooting.

4. 3. Virginia Modified Combat Course II, 60 rounds, 25, 15, 7, 5, 3 yards shooting.

5. 4. Virginia Qualification Course I, 50 rounds, 25 to 5 yards shooting.

6. 5. Virginia Qualification Course II, 60 rounds, 3 to 25 yards shooting.

7. 6. Virginia Tactical Qualification Course I, 50 rounds, 5 or 7, 25 yards shooting.

8. 7. Virginia Tactical Qualification Course II, 36 rounds, 3-25 yards shooting.

B. Officers of the Department of Corrections, Division of Operations.

1. Handgun.

a. Department of Corrections Virginia Modified Double Action Combat Course.

Target—Silhouette

60 rounds

Double action only

Minimum qualifying score—70% (points per hit on silhouette—minimum 210 points out of a possible 300 points)

7 yards—two handed crouch—6 rounds (one on whistle)

7 yards—two handed crouch—6 rounds (two on whistle)

7 yards—two handed crouch—12 rounds (30 seconds from whistle)

15 yards—two handed point shoulder—6 rounds (one on whistle)

15 yards—two handed point shoulder—6 rounds (two on whistle)

15 yards—two handed point shoulder—12 rounds (30 seconds from whistle)

25 yards—two handed point shoulder—6 rounds (10 seconds/right hand)

25 yards—two handed point shoulder—6 rounds (10 seconds/left hand)

C. Law-enforcement officers, jailors or custodial officers, courtroom security officers, civil process officers and officers of the Department of Corrections, Division of Operations.

1. Special weapons.

a. All agencies whose personnel possess, or have available for immediate use, shotguns or other similar special weapons, shall design an appropriate qualification weapons program and require all applicable personnel to complete annually.

b. The course, number of rounds to be fired and qualification score shall be determined by the agency or approved training school. Documentation of such qualification programs shall be available for inspection by the director or staff.

VA.R. Doc. No. R13-2733; Filed October 9, 2012, 8:39 a.m.