Title of Regulation: 2VAC5-540. Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Carbonated and Still Water Bottling Plants and Beverages (repealing 2VAC5-540-10 through 2VAC5-540-70).

Statutory Authority: §§ 3.2-5101 and 3.2-5121 of the Code of Virginia.

Public Hearing Information:

September 30, 2010 - 2 p.m. - Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, 2nd Floor, Board Room, Richmond, VA

Public Comment Deadline: October 15, 2010.

Agency Contact: Ryan Davis, Program Manager, Office of Dairy and Foods, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone (804) 786-8910, FAX (804) 371-7792, TTY (800) 828-1120, or email ryan.davis@vdacs.virginia.gov.

Basis: Sections 3.2-5101 and 3.2-5121 of the Code of Virginia authorize the Board of Agriculture and Consumer Services to adopt regulations, as needed, for the efficient enforcement of the Virginia Food Laws.

Purpose: It is proposed that these regulations be rescinded to resolve the issue of duplicative requirements as the requirements of the subject regulation already exist in the Virginia Food Laws. The requirements ensure that establishments that process carbonated and still water beverages do so in a manner that renders the food or drink safe and unadulterated. Since the requirements of this regulation are already enforced via the Virginia Food Laws, their repeal will not negatively impact the health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Substance: Substantive changes will be the repeal of these regulations. Requirements relating to the facility, sanitation, restrooms, and infectious diseases have already been incorporated into the Virginia Food Laws.

Issues: The primary advantage of this action to repeal the regulation is to eliminate duplicative requirements. The elimination of these requirements, which are already part of the Virginia Food Laws, will result in the elimination of potential confusion regarding regulatory requirements relative to certain food establishments. Elimination of duplicative provisions will also result in more efficient enforcement of requirements relating to food safety by agents of the Commonwealth, and positively impact the public, the food industry, and the Commonwealth. There do not appear to be any disadvantages to this particular action.

The Department of Planning and Budget's Economic Impact Analysis:

Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Regulation. The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) proposes to repeal these regulations.

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

Estimated Economic Impact. Almost all elements of these regulations are included in the Virginia Food Laws (Title 3.2, Chapter 51 of the Code of Virginia). One exception is the regulatory requirement for a separate syrup room. According to VDACS separate syrup rooms are not necessary to maintain sanitary conditions. Since requiring a separate syrup room can increase costs for firms and there is essentially no benefit to the requirement, eliminating this requirement with the proposed repeal of the regulations will produce a net benefit. Eliminating regulations that are duplicative of the Code of Virginia will have no impact beyond reducing potential future confusion when and if the Virginia Food Laws are amended.

Businesses and Entities Affected. The proposed amendments affect the 42 carbonated and still water bottling firms in Virginia.¹

Localities Particularly Affected. The proposed amendments do not disproportionately affect particular localities.

Projected Impact on Employment. The proposed amendments are unlikely to significantly affect employment.

Effects on the Use and Value of Private Property. The proposed amendments are unlikely to significantly affect the use and value of private property.

Small Businesses: Costs and Other Effects. The proposed amendments are unlikely to significantly affect small businesses.

Small Businesses: Alternative Method that Minimizes Adverse Impact. The proposed amendments are unlikely to significantly affect small businesses.

Real Estate Development Costs. The proposed amendments are unlikely to significantly affect real estate development costs.

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 Data Source: Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Agency's Response to the Department of Planning and Budget's Economic Impact Analysis: The agency concurs with the analysis of the Department of Planning and Budget.

Summary:

This regulation provides basic requirements for carbonated and still water bottling plants. The repeal of this regulation is requested because the essential elements of the regulation have already been incorporated into the Virginia Food Laws, Chapter 51 (§ 3.2-5100 et seq.) of Title 3.2 of the Code of Virginia.