Commenter:
Virginia Association of Onsite Soil Evaluators ("VAAOSE")
Respectfully Request VDH to Seek Attorney General Perspicuity
The Virginia Department of Health ("VDH" or “Agency”) is attempting to promulgate broad-ranging Regulations to adjust and or recover fees not historically collected. The current proposal may have a greater probability of affecting small businesses than reported or was investigated. Additionally, clarity is sought to better understand the underlying administrative duties expressed under Title 32.1 et. seq. and regulated duties within Title 54.1 Code of Virginia.
In the Proposed Fee regulations, VDH acknowledges that the Agency seeks to recover and amend costs without legislative review. At this time, we respectfully request VDH to seek Attorney General perspicuity on all anti competitive effects as required in Title 59.1_9.4.b of the Code of Virginia.
The questions present are:
Whether existing Agency fees utilized to administer Title 32.1 of the Code of Virginia cover actual or estimated cost.
Whether the Fee Regulations authorize VDH to charge a fee for duties provided under Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Whether a conflict exists whereas the Agency may be collecting ministerial fees for administration of Title 32.1 of the Code of Virginia and fees for service delivery of a regulated professional trade by Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Whether the Department of Planning and Budget (“DPB”) incorrectly assessed the impact(s) on small businesses within the Economic Impact Analysis, whereas the current practice of VDH providing “free soil evaluation and design services” have established anti competitive effectsand restraints of trade.
In 2007, the General Assembly mandated licensure to best protect public health, safety, and welfare within the Commonwealth. Confusion between purpose and authority has perpetuated disparity within the industry. As a result, VDH has evolved into the largest provider of soil evaluation and design services within the Commonwealth.
Greater understanding of VDH continuing to offer “free” services of a regulated trade is not without conflict. The deleterious impact of a State Agency competing with a regulated trade was neither the purpose nor intent of licensure. The proposed Fee Regulations should be revised to reflect only the authority granted under Title 32.1, Code of Virginia. Therefore, given the significance and importance of supporting small businesses in the Commonwealth, the VAAOSE strongly objects in authorizing VDH to update any fee schedule without further legislative input.
