Virginia Department of Planning and Budget Economic Impact Analysis dated August 18th, 2015 is inadequate to the task of reporting upon small businesses employing Onsite Soil Evaluators (OSE) who are in competition with a state agency which provides de-minimus subsidized design services, and act as code officials granting or withholding ministerial approval. FOR DPB to assert that the proposed dilution of standards for entry was in response to concerns that "individuals who have learned to perform certain skills in the field competently, but are not able to pass written tests" is surely a new low for DPOR.

Unfortunately there also appear to have been Officers of this Board who have personal interests exceeding the statutory exemptions, these Officers benefit from unenforceable regulations resulting from these transactions which may affect their own interest. These regulations lack reference to standards of practice, provisions for disclosure of conflicts of interest and duties to a consumer. There is also benefit accruing to individuals and organizations which offer training to fulfill requirements of these regulations.

For the public trust to be sustained this board should be disqualified from promulgating any amendments to Regulations pending an investigation by the Office of Inspector General or other responsible parties charged with determining whether these appearances of conflict of interest and self dealing violate applicable codes.

The largest design firm in the state, which is in competition with small businesses including sole proprietorships, limited liability and professional corporations, has undisclosed influence over WWWOOSSP. The result has been the promulgation of dual standards for entrance, training and experience which result in anti-competitive effects which harm the both the consumer and the professional.

The public should know this Board received formal complaints concerning licensed OSE, who misused documents, failed to follow DPOR & VDH regulations and GMP, and allowed unlicensed persons to perform professional duties without supervision or practice without a license. Rather than conducting a thorough review of evidence, or determining responsibility and acting to curtail these practices, this board acted to develop a new class of licensure not envisioned in the drafting of the enabling legislation. Please consider the impact of regulations with dual standards, which contribute to anti-competitive effects as recognized under Virginia Antitrust Act 59.1-9.1. Dual standards restrain trade, providing benefit to one party in competition with another. The "journeyman class" of Conventional Onsite Soil Evaluator (COSE), has no requirements for education, and minimal need to document training or experience, nor any guarantee of past or future supervision. There is considerable doubt whether the Board intended for the COSE to have signing authority, or the qualifications to practice this profession. Such ambiguity does not belong in the Professional Regulations.

While the Board has discretion to ignore comments provided during the NOIRA, well supported recommendations advocating protections to consumer and supported professional responsibilities were offered. Under guidelines of the Administrative Process Act § 2.2-4007.02 and § 2.2-4007.04 these should have been fully considered. 
In particular please consider the code: 

1. The economic impact analysis shall 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 by the regulation; the projected number of persons and employment positions to be affected; the impact of the regulation on the use and value of private property, including additional costs related to the development of real estate for commercial or residential purposes; and the projected costs to affected businesses, localities, or entities of implementing or complying with the regulations, including the estimated fiscal impact on such localities and sources of potential funds to implement and comply with such regulation. A copy of the economic impact analysis shall be provided to the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules;

2. If the regulation may have an adverse effect on small businesses, the economic impact analysis shall also 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. As used in this subdivision, “small business” has the same meaning as provided in subsection A of § 2.2-4007.1;

Onsite systems serve almost one million homes in Virginia, approximately 6,000 new homes are permitted each year, and an equal number apply for repairs. Meanwhile the incidence of shellfish waters in proximity to failed or inadequately designed and constructed conventional septic systems continues to threaten the waters of Virginia. Therefore I call for redevelopment of Department of Planning and Budget return to the issue and develop a study in consistent with applicable guidance and code. The referenced report is not adequate to the task of reporting economic impact on the small businesses as required, nor on the property owners who deserve consistent support for their improvements to real property and the community which expects to be protected from pollution or other damage which could be prevented or mitigated by adequate professional and regulatory oversight.