Certified Final Objection No. 113 of the
Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules
At its meeting on February 16, 2001, the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (Committee) voted, pursuant to RSA 541-A:13, IV, to enter a preliminary objection to Final Proposal 2000-146 containing proposed He-P 801 from the Department of Health and Human Services (Department) relative to general requirements for all facilities. The Department responded by letter dated April 2, 2001.
At its meeting on April 20, 2001, the Committee voted, pursuant to RSA 541-A:13, V(d), to enter a final objection to Final Proposal 2000-146. The final objection has been filed with the Director of the Office of Legislative Services for publication in the New Hampshire Rulemaking Register. The effect of a final objection is stated in RSA 541-A:13, VI:
After a final objection by the committee to a provision of a rule is filed with the director under subparagraph V(d), the burden of proof thereafter shall be on the agency in any action for judicial review or for enforcement of the provision to establish that the part objected to is within the authority delegated to the agency, is consistent with the intent of the legislature, is in the public interest, or does not have a substantial economic impact not recognized in the fiscal impact statement. If the agency fails to meet its burden of proof, the court shall declare the whole or portion of the rule objected to invalid. The failure of the committee to object to a rule shall not be an implied legislative authorization of its substantive or procedural lawfulness.
Please note that, subsequent to entering the final objection, the Committee voted to support the sponsorship of a joint resolution based upon the issue outlined below. The following summarizes the bases for the Committee’s final objection:
Objection Response for Final Proposal 2000-146
The Committee objected that the rules in Final Proposal 2000-146 have substantial economic impact not recognized in the fiscal impact statement, as amended, as provided in Committee Rules 401.01(a)(1) and (5).
The fiscal impact statement, in the Committee’s view, was incorrect relative to small residential care homes. After hearing the testimony from members of the public who will be affected by these rules as well as from the Department, the Committee concluded that the fiscal impact statement, as amended, did not completely and correctly state the costs and benefits to the citizens of the state or to the political subdivisions of the state. Additionally, the Committee concluded that the fiscal impact statement, as amended, was incorrect in its analysis of the effect that the rules would have on independently-owned businesses. The Committee came to these conclusions because the rules in He-P 801 do not differentiate between small and large residential care homes.