TITLE 18. PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING

BOARD OF DENTISTRY

Fast-Track Regulation

Title of Regulation: 18VAC60-15. Regulations Governing the Disciplinary Process (amending 18VAC60-15-20).

Statutory Authority: § 54.1-2400 of the Code of Virginia.

Public Hearing Information: No public hearing is currently scheduled.

Public Comment Deadline: April 8, 2026.

Effective Date: April 23, 2026.

Agency Contact: Jamie Sacksteder, Executive Director, Board of Dentistry, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 300, Henrico, VA 23233, telephone (804) 367-4581, fax (804) 698-4266, or email jamie.sacksteder@dhp.virginia.gov.

Basis: Section 54.1-2400 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the Board of Dentistry to promulgate regulations that are reasonable and necessary to administer the regulatory system.

Purpose: Without this amendment, applicants must wait for an informal conference committee to convene and hear a matter pertaining to an application, which delays the entry of qualified practitioners with nonroutine applications from entering the workforce. Allowing agency subordinates to hear these matters expedites the review process, getting practitioners into the workforce faster.

Rationale for Using Fast-Track Rulemaking Process: This action is considered noncontroversial and therefore appropriate for the fast-track rulemaking process because it conforms the regulation to statute and will lead to faster adjudication of applicant cases.

Substance: The amendment removes language limiting agency subordinates to reviewing disciplinary matters, which will allow agency subordinates to hear credentials cases as well as disciplinary cases.

Issues: There are no primary advantages or disadvantages to the public. There are no primary advantages or disadvantages to the agency or the Commonwealth.

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. The current Regulations Governing the Disciplinary Process in Dentistry (regulation) allows the Board of Dentistry (board) to delegate an informal fact-finding proceeding to an agency subordinate² only upon a determination that probable cause exists that a practitioner may be subject to a disciplinary action. Following 2023 legislation, the board proposes to remove this restriction.

Background. Subdivision 10 of § 54.1-2400 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the board to appoint a special conference committee to ascertain the fact basis for their decisions of cases through informal conference or consultation proceedings. The statute provides that this may occur upon receipt of information that a practitioner or permit holder of the appropriate board may be subject to disciplinary action or to consider an application for a license. Prior to 2023 legislation, the statute indicated that the board may delegate to an appropriately qualified agency subordinate the authority to conduct informal fact-finding proceedings, but only "upon receipt of information that a practitioner may be subject to a disciplinary action." This effectively prevented delegation from occurring to "consider an application for a license." Chapter 191 of the 2023 Acts of Assembly³ removed the requirement that a practitioner must be subject to a disciplinary action in order for the board to make such delegation. Accordingly, the board is now proposing to remove that same restriction from the regulation as it is no longer mandated by statute.

Estimated Benefits and Costs. Since the legislation has been in effect, the board has already been able to delegate to an appropriately qualified agency subordinate the conducting of informal fact-finding proceedings for nonroutine applications for licensure. This change is beneficial in that it may speed the licensing of dentists and dental hygienists with nonroutine applications for licensure. Since this is optional, there do not appear to be any introduced costs. Amending the regulation to reflect the legislation may be beneficial in that it better informs the public concerning what is permitted in practice.

Businesses and Other Entities Affected. According to the Department of Health Professions, there are typically about four to five nonroutine applications for dentist and dental hygienist licensure that require evidentiary hearings each year. Such applicants, as well as potential delegated agency subordinates, are particularly affected by the legislation. 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 As there is no increase in net cost nor reduction in net revenue, an adverse impact is not indicated.

Small Businesses⁵ Affected.⁶ The proposed amendment does not adversely affect small businesses.

Localities⁷ Affected.⁸ The proposed amendment neither disproportionately affects any particular locality, nor does it introduce costs for local governments.

Projected Impact on Employment. The proposed amendment does not appear to affect total employment.

Effects on the Use and Value of Private Property. Since the legislation may quicken the licensing of dentists and dental hygienists with nonroutine applications for licensure, such dentists and dental hygienists may start practicing in Virginia sooner. The proposed amendment does not affect real estate development costs.

_____________________________

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 The current and proposed regulations state that an agency subordinate authorized by the board to conduct an informal fact-finding proceeding may include current or past board members and professional staff or other persons deemed knowledgeable by virtue of their training and experience in administrative proceedings involving the regulation and discipline of health professionals..

³ See https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?231+ful+CHAP0191+hil.

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 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."

⁶ 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.

⁷ "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.

⁸ Section 2.2-4007.04 defines "particularly affected" as bearing disproportionate material impact.

Agency Response to Economic Impact Analysis: The Board of Dentistry concurs with the economic impact analysis prepared by the Department of Planning and Budget.

Summary:

Pursuant to Chapter 191 of the 2023 Acts of Assembly, the amendment removes a limitation that agency subordinates be used only for disciplinary matters and will allow boards that use agency subordinates to employ those agency subordinates to hear credentials cases as well as disciplinary cases.

18VAC60-15-20. Criteria for delegation of informal fact-finding proceedings to an agency subordinate.

A. Decision to delegate. In accordance with subdivision 10 of § 54.1-2400 of the Code of Virginia, the board may delegate an informal fact-finding proceeding to an agency subordinate at the time a determination is made that probable cause exists that a practitioner may be subject to a disciplinary action. If delegation to a subordinate is not recommended at the time of the probable cause determination, delegation may be approved by the president of the board or his designee.

B. Criteria for an agency subordinate.

1. An agency subordinate authorized by the board to conduct an informal fact-finding proceeding may include current or past board members and professional staff or other persons deemed knowledgeable by virtue of their training and experience in administrative proceedings involving the regulation and discipline of health professionals.

2. The executive director shall maintain a list of appropriately qualified persons to whom an informal fact-finding proceeding may be delegated.

3. The board may delegate to the executive director the selection of the agency subordinate who is deemed appropriately qualified to conduct a proceeding based on the qualifications of the subordinate and the type of case being heard.