Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Labs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DHHS seeks rulemaking authority to set water-lab fees; bill would move fees from statute into administrative rule
Summary
The Department of Health and Human Services asked the committee to move public water laboratory fees from statute into administrative rulemaking to allow unified, routine updates and to align fee treatment with other public-health lab fees; committee discussion sought clarifying language about where fee revenue is deposited.
The Department of Health and Human Services asked lawmakers to move the list of public-water laboratory fees now spelled out in statute into the department's administrative rules so the department can update fees through the rulemaking process and unify public-health laboratory fees.
Lou Baranelli, water lab program manager in DHHS's Bureau of Laboratory Services, said nearly 70 specific water lab fees currently reside in statute (RSA 1 31, section 3-a as described in committee materials) and were inherited from the Department of Environmental Services when DHHS assumed the water lab program in 2011. Baranelli told the committee that, except for water lab testing fees, public-health laboratory fees are already in an administrative rule (H E-P 2205) and the proposed change would standardize the process and bring fee-setting under the department's rulemaking authority.
Committee members sought where collected fees are deposited. Baranelli explained longstanding practice: historically half of certain lab fees have been deposited in the general fund and the other half into a dedicated laboratory equipment account; some fee receipts tied to grants or other state agencies are treated differently. Lawmakers asked for clearer statutory language to reflect current practice and to avoid confusion about fee flows. Sponsor Senator Gray said the change is intended to keep routine fee updates in the rulemaking process rather than the statute but that the committee should fix wording to make the 50/50 split and dedicated account treatment unambiguous.
The department characterized the bill as department-requested and budget-neutral. Committee members asked the department to clarify statutory cross-references and the precise deposit paths in amended language. The hearing closed with no immediate objections; the sponsor asked the subcommittee to adjust wording so the department's intent is explicit on fee deposit and rulemaking authority.
