DPOR writes that it must adopt regulations by July 1, 2009.  This is incorrect.  The statute gives the board authority to adopt regulations on July 1, 2009.   The law does not have an enactment clause nor does it require that the board have a set of regulations on July 1, 2009.

The agency background document and the economic impact analysis implies that installers have been previously unregulated.  This is wrong.  People who install sewage systems must have a contractor's license and are bound by a set of regulations under the contractor's board.

In the regulatory flexibility analysis, DPOR wrote that "[the] VDH program does not differentiate between onsite soil evaluators for conventional systems (the familiar back yard septic tank and drain field) and alternative systems (using processes similar to those used by wastewater treatment facilities that produce little or no water discharge to the environment).  Currently, all VDH certified AOSEs are authorized to perform soil evaluations for conventional and alternative systems.  The focus of concern was on the soils matrix impact of alternative systems and the need for more specific knowledge in soil evaluation and system design than is required for conventional systems....The Board concluded that two levels of onsite soil evaluator were appropriate rather than one all-inclusive level...."

You do not need more specific knowledge in soil evaluation to evaluate site and soil conditions.  I believe that you need the same amount of site and soil evaluation knowledge.  Why would you need more knowledge to describe site and soil features depending on the system design?  Why did the Board conclude this?  What is a "soils matrix impact?"  The Board of Health concluded that one level was appropriate.  Does the board have information in its possession that is better informed than the Board of Health?  If so, the agency background document should better explore this need for two levels.

The primary advantage noted in the agency background document is that the citizens receive the benefit of a law being implemented.  Why is there benefit of a law being implemented if the methods of implementation are not well-considered or well-informed?

DPOR wrote that substantial consideration was given to the inevitable impact of a new legislative mandate on those directly affected.  What was the substantial consideration?  Thanks for the conclusion but I would like some more information about why you reached that conclusion.  Offering the conclusion is not enough.  Did the board consider grandfathering?  Did the board consider keeping the experience the same?  If so, why change?  You can't answer "why" with "substantial consideration." 

I can understand why the Department of Planning and Budget did not have enough information to determine the economic impacts.   There is insufficient information.