Title of Regulation: 2VAC5-50. Rules and Regulations Governing the Prevention, Control and Eradication of Brucellosis of Cattle in Virginia (repealing 2VAC5-50-10 through 2VAC5-50-110).

Statutory Authority: §§ 3.2-6001, 3.2-6002, and 3.2-6004 of the Code of Virginia.

Public Hearing Information: No public hearings are scheduled.

Public Comment Deadline: November 4, 2015.

Effective Date: November 19, 2015.

Agency Contact: Charles Broaddus, D.V.M., Program Manager, Office of Veterinary Services, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone (804) 786-4560, FAX (804) 371-2380, TTY (800) 828-1120, or email charles.broaddus@vdacs.virginia.gov.

Basis: Section 3.2-109 of the Code of Virginia establishes the Board of Agriculture and Consumer Services as a policy board with the authority to adopt regulations in accordance with the provisions of Title 3.2 of the Code of Virginia. Section 3.2-6001 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the board and the State Veterinarian to protect livestock and poultry from contagious and infectious disease. Section 3.2-6002 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the board to adopt regulations to prevent the spread of and eradicate contagious and infectious livestock and poultry diseases.

Purpose: The existing regulation provides the framework for the eradication of brucellosis in Virginia cattle. Brucellosis is an infectious disease of cattle that can also affect humans and was common in cattle in much of the 20th century. Through a structured and effective program, brucellosis was eradicated from cattle in all of the United States except around the Greater Yellowstone Area, where it remains in wildlife such as elk and bison and occasionally in cattle exposed to the wildlife. Through the testing of cattle and removal of those found to be positive for brucellosis, as required in the regulation, brucellosis was eradicated from Virginia, with the last known case occurring in the 1980s.

This regulation was developed and used during the successful eradication effort for brucellosis in cattle. The regulation is now outdated. The tests and programs included in the regulation have not been utilized in at least 15 years. As such, this regulation is no longer needed. If brucellosis returns to Virginia, the agency has the ability to manage disease outbreaks and quarantine animals under statutory authority. Brucellosis no longer provides a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare in Virginia.

Rationale for Using Fast-Track Process: As brucellosis has not been detected in cattle in Virginia since the 1980s, there is no longer a need for this regulation. The agency is not aware of any stakeholders suggesting that the regulation be retained or that the regulation is of any benefit to them.

Substance: Due to the eradication of brucellosis in Virginia, this regulation is no longer needed. Therefore, the agency proposes to repeal the regulation.

Issues: The primary advantage to the public in repealing the regulation is that there would no longer be an outdated regulation that specifies actions that are no longer taken. The agency and Commonwealth will no longer be in a position of having an outdated regulation that is not enforced. This action is part of good governance in that an outdated, unnecessary regulation will be eliminated. There are no disadvantages to the public or the Commonwealth associated with repealing the regulation.

Small Business Impact Review Report of Findings: This regulatory action serves as the report of the findings of the regulatory review pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia.

Department of Planning and Budget's Economic Impact Analysis:

Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Regulation. The Board of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Board) proposes to repeal this regulation.

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

Estimated Economic Impact. The existing regulation provides the framework for the eradication of brucellosis in Virginia cattle. Brucellosis is an infectious disease of cattle that can also affect humans and was common in cattle in much of the 20th century. Through a structured and effective program, brucellosis was eradicated from cattle in all of the United States except around the Greater Yellowstone Area, where it remains in wildlife such as elk and bison and occasionally in cattle exposed to the wildlife. Through the testing of cattle and removal of those found to be positive for brucellosis, as required in the regulation, brucellosis was eradicated from Virginia, with the last known case occurring in the 1980s. According to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), since brucellosis in cattle was eradicated the tests and programs included in the regulation have not been utilized in at least 15 years. If brucellosis returns to the Commonwealth, VDACS has the ability to manage disease outbreaks and quarantine animals under statutory authority.¹ Thus, repealing this regulation will have no impact beyond the benefit of decreasing the chance that readers of the regulation would be misled concerning current requirements. Therefore the proposed repeal of the regulation will produce a small net benefit.

Businesses and Entities Affected. Repealing this regulation will have no impact beyond decreasing the likelihood that readers of the regulation would be misled concerning current requirements. When the regulation was utilized, it affected cattle ranches, stockyards, and slaughterhouses.

Localities Particularly Affected. The proposed repeal of this regulation does not disproportionately affect particular localities.

Projected Impact on Employment. The proposed repeal of this regulation does not affect employment.

Effects on the Use and Value of Private Property. The proposed repeal of this regulation does not significantly affect private property.

Small Businesses: Costs and Other Effects. The proposed repeal of this regulation does not significantly affect costs for small businesses.

Small Businesses: Alternative Method that Minimizes Adverse Impact. The proposed amendments will not adversely affect small businesses.

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

Legal Mandate. General: 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 Number 17 (2014). Section 2.2-4007.04 requires that such economic impact analyses determine the public benefits and costs of the proposed amendments. Further the report should include but not be limited to:

• the projected number of businesses or other entities to whom the proposed regulatory

action 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.

Small Businesses: If the proposed regulatory action will have an adverse effect on small businesses, § 2.2-4007.04 requires that such economic impact analyses include:

• an identification and estimate of the number of small businesses subject to the proposed

regulation,

• 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,

• a statement of the probable effect of the proposed regulation on affected small businesses, and

• 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, if there is a finding that a proposed regulation may have an adverse impact on small business, the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules is notified at the time the proposed regulation is submitted to the Virginia Register of Regulations for publication. This analysis shall represent DPB's best estimate for the purposes of public review and comment on the proposed regulation.

¹Source: 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:

The regulatory action repeals the regulation, which is outdated and no longer necessary as brucellosis has been eradicated from Virginia.