TITLE 8. EDUCATION

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Fast-Track Regulation

Title of Regulation: 8VAC20-360. Regulations Governing General Educational Development Certificates (repealing 8VAC20-360-10, 8VAC20-360-20).

Statutory Authority: § 22.1-16 of the Code of Virginia.

Public Hearing Information: No public hearing is currently scheduled.

Public Comment Deadline: December 17, 2025.

Effective Date: January 1, 2026.

Agency Contact: Jim Chapman, Director of Board Relations, Department of Education, James Monroe Building, 101 North 14th Street, 25th Floor, Richmond, VA 23219, telephone (804) 750-8750, or email jim.chapman@doe.virginia.gov.

Basis: Section 22.1-16 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the State Board of Education to promulgate regulations necessary to carry out its powers and duties and the provisions of Title 22.1 of the Code of Virginia.

Purpose: The regulation is being repealed as it is no longer necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare because it has been replaced by the regular no-cost procurement process.

Rationale for Using Fast-Track Rulemaking Process: This rulemaking is expected to be noncontroversial and therefore appropriate for the fast-track rulemaking process because the repealed provisions have been replaced by the regular no-cost procurement process, which ensures that the approved assessments and testing protocols remain compliant with board guidance and the credential retains its rigorous value.

Substance: The action repeals Regulations Governing General Educational Development Certificates (8VAC20-360), which is obsolete.

Issues: The primary advantage to both the public and the Commonwealth is that unnecessary and outdated regulatory requirements will be removed. There are no disadvantages.

Department of Planning and Budget Economic Impact Analysis:

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 Code of Virginia and Executive Order 19. The analysis presented represents DPB's best estimate of the potential economic impacts as of the date of this analysis.¹

Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Regulation. As a result of a periodic review,² the State Board of Education (board) proposes to repeal obsolete criteria regarding eligibility and retesting for General Educational Development (GED) certificates.

Background. Chapter 84 of the 2014 Acts of General Assembly³ replaced references in the Code of Virginia to the GED program or test with the phrase, a high school equivalency examination approved by the Board of Education. According to the Department of Education (DOE), the language was changed in recognition of other high school equivalency options that became available and could potentially be approved for administration in Virginia. Further, following the enactment of Chapter 84, DOE has started using a no-cost procurement process (since 2015) to recognize high school equivalency assessments that meet board guidelines and has been following the board approved publisher policies that address the testing parameters and retake policies. In essence, DOE states that the change to the statute and the adoption of the no-cost procurement process have rendered the current regulatory language regarding the criteria on eligibility and retesting for GED certificates obsolete. In this action, the Board proposes to repeal the related language in the text of the regulation.

Estimated Benefits and Costs. The proposal would repeal obsolete language regarding eligibility and retesting for GED certificates without having any impact on current testing practices. Thus, no significant economic impact is expected other than eliminating potential confusion for the readers of the regulation.

Businesses and Other Entities Affected. The proposed amendments would not affect any entity other than the readers of the regulation. The proposal would not have any disproportional impact on any entity. The Code of Virginia requires DPB to assess whether an adverse impact may result from the proposed regulation.⁴ An adverse impact is indicated if there is any increase in net cost or reduction in net benefit for any entity, even if the benefits exceed the costs for all entities combined.⁵ No adverse impact is indicated as there is no increase in net cost or reduction in net benefit for any entity.

Small Businesses⁶ Affected.⁷ The proposed amendments do not adversely affect small businesses.

Localities⁸ Affected.⁹ The proposed amendments do not introduce costs for localities.

Projected Impact on Employment. No impact on employment is expected.

Effects on the Use and Value of Private Property. No effects on the use and value of private property nor on real estate development costs are expected.

_____________________________

¹ Section 2.2-4007.04 of the Code of Virginia requires that such economic impact analyses determine the public benefits and costs of the proposed amendments. Further the analysis should include but not be limited to: (1) the projected number of businesses or other entities to whom the proposed regulatory action would apply, (2) the identity of any localities and types of businesses or other entities particularly affected, (3) the projected number of persons and employment positions to be affected, (4) the projected costs to affected businesses or entities to implement or comply with the regulation, and (5) the impact on the use and value of private property.

² https://townhall.virginia.gov/L/ViewPReview.cfm?PRid=2528.

³ https://legacylis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?141+ful+CHAP0084.

⁴ Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.04 D: In the event this economic impact analysis reveals that the proposed regulation would have an adverse economic impact on businesses or would impose a significant adverse economic impact on a locality, business, or entity particularly affected, the Department of Planning and Budget shall advise the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules, the House Committee on Appropriations, and the Senate Committee on Finance. Statute does not define "adverse impact," state whether only Virginia entities should be considered, nor indicate whether an adverse impact results from regulatory requirements mandated by legislation.

⁵ Statute does not define "adverse impact," state whether only Virginia entities should be considered, nor indicate whether an adverse impact results from regulatory requirements mandated by legislation. As a result, DPB has adopted a definition of adverse impact that assesses changes in net costs and benefits for each affected Virginia entity that directly results from discretionary changes to the regulation.

⁶ Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.04, small business is defined as "a business entity, including its affiliates, that (i) is independently owned and operated and (ii) employs fewer than 500 full-time employees or has gross annual sales of less than $6 million."

⁷ If the proposed regulatory action may have an adverse effect on small businesses, § 2.2-4007.04 requires that such economic impact analyses include: (1) an identification and estimate of the number of small businesses subject to the proposed regulation, (2) the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other administrative costs required for small businesses to comply with the proposed regulation, including the type of professional skills necessary for preparing required reports and other documents, (3) a statement of the probable effect of the proposed regulation on affected small businesses, and (4) a description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the purpose of the proposed regulation. Additionally, pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia, if there is a finding that a proposed regulation may have an adverse impact on small business, the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules shall be notified.

⁸ "Locality" can refer to either local governments or the locations in the Commonwealth where the activities relevant to the regulatory change are most likely to occur.

⁹ Section 2.2-4007.04 defines "particularly affected" as bearing disproportionate material impact.

Agency Response to the Economic Impact Analysis: The State Board of Education thanks the Department of Planning and Budget for its thorough economic impact analysis.

Summary:

The action repeals Regulations Governing General Educational Development Certificates (8VAC20-360), which contains obsolete criteria regarding eligibility and retesting for General Educational Development (GED) certificates.