Vol. 36 Iss. 5 - October 28, 2019



Agency Decision

Title of Regulation: 18VAC95-30. Regulations Governing the Practice of Assisted Living Facility Administrators.

Statutory Authority: §§ 54.1-2400 and 54.1-3102 of the Code of Virginia.

Name of Petitioner: Bertha Simmons.

Nature of Petitioner's Request: 1) Allow an administrator-in-training who is an acting administrator to count more than 40 hours per week on the monthly report for training.

2) Allow some of the credit hours in an administrator-in-training program in assisted living to also count for training for nursing home licensure.

Agency Decision: No action.

Statement of Reason for Decision: The board recently convened a large stakeholder group to review all aspects of requirements for assisted living facility administrators to develop strategies to improve both the quality of the administrator-in-training experience and the number of persons who may qualify for licensure. There are a number of policy options and actions under consideration, and the board has requested that additional information be brought to its next meeting on December 17, 2019. At that meeting, the petition will be considered by the board, and the board will vote to include the matters addressed in the petitions in the policy options to be addressed with those presented from the stakeholder workgroup. Therefore, the board will not specifically take action on the petition but will discuss further in the context of its overall review of administrator-in-training requirements.

Agency Contact: Corie Tillman Wolf, Executive Director, Board of Long-Term Care Administrators, Department of Health Professions, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 300, Richmond, VA 23233-1463, telephone (804) 367-4595, or email

VA.R. Doc. No. R19-33 Filed October 2, 2019, 8:36 a.m.

w  ––––––––––––––––––  w



Agency Decision

Title of Regulation: 24VAC35-60. Ignition Interlock Regulations.

Statutory Authority: § 18.2-270.2 of the Code of Virginia.

Name of Petitioner: Cynthia Ellen Hites.

Nature of Petitioner's Request: "I, Cynthia Ellen Hites, as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, pursuant to § 2.2-4007 of the Code of Virginia, do humbly submit this petition for the following amendment of Virginia Administrative Code 24VAC35-60-50. Currently, Virginia statute 24VAC35-60-50 D, 9 reads: 'D. Service providers may charge offenders for ignition interlock services at rates up to, but not to exceed, the following:... 9. $50 for violation resets, when the violation is determined to be the fault of the offender.' As the law exists, in the event of 'mouth alcohol,' machine malfunction, or one of the host of non-ethanol readings expected by interlock companies for compounds in personal hygiene products, ignition interlock providers can withhold citizens' ability to utilize their personal vehicle until they provide the interlock company $50. This is tantamount to extortion. Until all evidence can be considered in a court of law, a violation cannot be determined. Due to this fact, a violation reset fee cannot be collected until a 'violation' can be determined by a judge. I propose that 24VAC35-60-50, within section D, #9, which allows a $50 reset fee to be collected by ignition interlock providers, be removed in its entirety. Currently, ASAP case managers are precluded from considering or accepting any evidence aside from the devices' failed readings. Employing circular logic, Section IV of the VASAP Process and Procedures Manual states: 'Under no circumstances shall the ASAP accept any other means of clearing a failing BAC registered on an interlock device other than the device itself. This includes, but is not limited to preliminary breath test machines, urine screens, etc...' When a petition was filed in 2018 to allow case managers to consider additional evidence when citing a violation, VASAP's Richard Foy responded with the following statements: 'The petitioner is suggesting that ASAP case managers...accept and consider additional evidence submitted by the client to include such things as urine screens, blood tests, preliminary breath tests, and police or other eyewitness testimony. All of that is to be considered prior to determining whether an ignition interlock violation occurred. Doing this would raise some questions and concerns. That's something the court would consider, and VASAP is not going to be comfortable in considering those results because it tends to put us in a judicial role. We believe any additional information...would be best presented to the court in a non-compliance hearing...' Ignition interlock machines use inherently non-ethanol specific electrochemical fuel cell technology. This means an ethanol violation may be suspected by a case manager, but all evidence must be considered to determine an ethanol violation, and only a judge can make that determination upon preponderance of the evidence. Commissioners, please amend this statute and remove #9 from 24VAC35-60-50, section D. It's wholly unfair to charge Virginians a 'violation' reset fee prior to conviction. Very Sincerely, Cynthia Hites."

Agency Decision: Request denied.

Statement of Reason for Decision: The Commission on the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program denied the petitioner's request. The current procedures followed by ASAPs and ignition interlock vendors are in compliance with state regulations and do not require modification.

Agency Contact: Richard Foy, Regulatory Coordinator, Commission on the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program, 701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1110, Richmond, VA 23219, telephone (804) 786-5895, or email

VA.R. Doc. No. R19-27 Filed October 3, 2019, 11:18 a.m.