Legislative- FAQ

Welcome to the FAQ section of the Legislative page. Below are the questions asked of the Board and the associated response from the REHS Board team. If you have other questions, please email it to us. We'll answer your question and post the reply on this page.

This email address is a non-clickable graphic. To use this address, simply type it in the TO: line of your email. (We apologize for inconvenience. www.rsboard.com is trying to reduce the spam generated from it's site by not posting new email links.)

Table of Contents (TOC)
Q 1: Input & distribution
Q 2: EHS designation
Q 3: Why raise the fee?
Q 4: Why raise the fee now?
Q 5: How did we get a sponsor?
Q 6: Board Members $50 per diem?
Q 7: Repeal of 10 GS 90A
Q 8: Accredited Institutions
Q 9: Administrative Fee for Exam
Q 10: Retroactive rules?
Q 11: Inexcusable Neglect

11 Question: In your FAQ contents- statement like those currently working and effective date were mentioned.   Question is - whenever this bill passes are all these new rules going to be retroactive and it all starts anew.   Also, what's is meant by inexcusable negligent of duty or moral turpitude.

Response: Please refer to FAQ Question #10 for the response to the first part of this question. "Inexcusable neglect of duty" is when the REHS fails to carry out his duties as prescribed by law, rule and policy, without a valid and persuasive reason. "Inexcusable neglect of duty" will allow the Board to take into account extenuating circumstances that may occur while a REHS is carrying out his/her duties and responsibilities that were beyond the control of the REHS. "Moral turpitude" is a legal concept of crimes that involve conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals.

--posted April 2009
Back to TOC

10 Question: Are all these new rules going to be retroactive or they are going to be freshly applied?

Currently only changes to the Statutes governing registered Environmental Health Specialist and Environmental Health Specialist Interns are proposed. If approved they will become effective on the date ratified and signed into law. The changes in fees will not become effective until the administrative Rules are changed by the Board. The Board plans to begin the rulemaking process when the statutes go into effect. The effective date of the new fees and other rule changes is dependent on how long the rule writing and approval process takes, which will most likely be sometime in 2010. Nothing in the statutes or the rules is being proposed to be retroactive.

--posted April 2009
Back to TOC

9 Question: If Senate bill 834 passes, what are the Boards intended “administration fee” for administering the examination?  What is the administration fee going to be based on? 

I believe the NEHA exam is currently $100 and probably will go up in price at some point in time.  If the Board charges $150 administration fee, the total cost for taking the test is $250 not counting travel expenses.  Some counties pay for the exams, some counties pay for the exam one time, and some counties probably won’t pay for the exam.  I am concerned that new employees could have difficulty paying for the exam or subsequent exam.  I would rather see annual renewal fees raised enough to spread this cost out to cover expenses.  

I am unclear on 90A-63.  

1.Why would we charge up to $125 for in state renewal and only $100 for registration from another state?

2.Line 27, 28, and 29 determines renewal fees not exceed $125.  However, renewals postmarked before January 1, renewal fees shall not exceed $100.  Lines 30 and 31 only authorize an additional $5 late renewal fee.  Where does the $125 figure into this?  Additionally, would we rather not have a more substantial charge for renewals made after January 1 to encourage on time renewals?        

Response: The fee for administering the examination will be used to cover the expenses related to giving the exam. When the Board broke down the cost five years ago it cost approximately $88 per participant to administer the exam. This cost only takes Board travel expenses into account.  Since this is a “user based” fee it’s only fair to put some of the burden on the user. The cost to purchase the NEHA exam is currently $125 and is all the Board is authorized by law to charge the participant. The Board has not determined what the actual administration fee will be, that will be done when rule making begins. Raising the renewal fees adequately to cover these costs will burden everyone as opposed to only those one using the service.  Board revenues are currently limited to registration of interns, registration renewals, and interest.  

Clarification of 90A-63:

1.The fees stated in the question are two different fees. The fee, as stated in 90A-62, is for out of state applicants who are Environmental Health Specialists and requesting certification from the Board. This fee is similar to the same application fee required for Interns.  Although not yet determined, the fee will most likely be the same fee for both applications. 90A-63(a) sets a ceiling of $100 and $125 on the renewal fee.  The fee paid when an application is submitted as an intern and for certification of out of state environmental health specialist does not take the place of the registration renewal fee.    

2.90A-63(a) provides an incentive to submit renewals early. The renewal fee of $100 (actual fee to be set during the rule making process) is the same for everyone as long as the renewals are postmarked before January 1. After December 31 the fee to renew will be $25 dollars higher. The Board agreed that the $5 late fee was not substantial enough to encourage registration before the end of the year. The $5 late fee has been removed from the bill.       

--posted April 2009
Back to TOC

8 Question: 90A-53 (a)(3)a,b Does that mean that only institutions accredited by these two requirements will be accepted. That could eliminate many fine colleges and universities in the nation.

Response: SB 834 proposes to use those specific accreditation agencies because they are the ones that are widely accepted and have been used by the Board for many years. The provision currently in 90A-60 states the "Board may accept the ratings of educational institutions as issued by accrediting bodies acceptable to the Board." The agencies listed in SB 834 are the agencies the Board has been using. The proposed new language is intended to clarify which councils the Board relies on to decide acceptable colleges or universities.

--posted April 2009
Back to TOC

7 Question: Why is section 10 G. S. 90A-60 and 90A-61 being repealed? Does that mean that REHS's registered before the present requirements will be kicked out if the board so chooses, including retired REHS's that keep up their hours. The wording is unclear.

Response: GS 90A-60 is being repealed because it is being replaced with similar language in SB 834, Section 4 (a)(3). GS 90A-61 is being repealed because it is no longer needed. Since anyone presently registered as a Registered Sanitarian or Registered Sanitarian Intern is automatically changed to Registered Environmental Heath Specialist or Registered Environmental Health Specialist Intern, there is no longer a need to "grandfather" those currently working.

--posted April 2009
Back to TOC

6 Question: Why do board members need to receive $50.00 per diem compensation when they are already being paid by the county or the state? I don't have a problem with travel reimbursement as presently allowed.

Response: Board members who work for DENR are expressly prohibited by DENR travel policy from receiving the per diem. Most local health departments have the same policy, so those working in the public sector do not accept the per diem. Traditionally, the "public spirited citizen" has accepted the per diem. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that the per diem for the Board (for those who are eligible) is limited to $50 maximum.

--posted April 2009
Back to TOC

5 Question: How did we finally get a sponsor this time?

Response: As with most legislation that gets introduced, the interested body (in this case, the Board) talks with legislators with whom there is a good relationship. If the legislator is convinced that the legislation is needed, and is willing to push it forward, it gets introduced. This year, Layton Long was successful in getting Senator Stan Bingham to introduce it. Senator Bingham felt strongly enough about it to enlist the support of a number of cosponsors.

--posted April 2009
Back to TOC

4-Question: Why (increase fees) now?

Response: As stated in Q3, the Board has determined that if the fees are not increased soon, there will be insufficient funds to do its work.  SB 834 would give the Board the authority to increase fees.  Actual fees increases would be made by administrative rule, which goes through the same notice and hearings processes as all other administrative rules.  If SB 834 is ratified into law, the Board will initiate the formal rulemaking process and will solicit input from all stakeholders prior to adoption.

--posted April 2009
Back to TOC

3-Question: Why raise the RS fee?

Response: The Board has been operating at a deficit for a number of years. In fact, there have been NO increases in fees since the RS Board was created in 1982, almost 27 years ago. With inflation over the years, and no increases in fees, the Board has been dipping into its Fund Balance annually. Added expenses for Internal Controls required by the Office of the State Controller for all state boards, increased administrative cost, and additional auditing requirements have impacted the Board. Finally, the creation of the joint website dealing with registration, authorization, and centralized training (RSTAS) was jointly funded by the Board and DEH. The current budget projects almost $11,000 more cost than income. If the fees are not increased, the Board will have insufficient funds to carry out its mission. Board members make every effort to spend wisely.

--posted April 2009
Back to TOC

2-Question: Will passage of the Bill and the changing of the term "Sanitarian" to "Environmental Health Specialist" have any effect on the registrations of those of us who are currently Registered Sanitarians? I don't see any mention of a transition process for existing Environmental Health Specialists. Will the Board need to re-register existing Environmental Health Specialists in order for them to continue to practice, or will the original approval of someone as an R.S. allow them to continue regardless of the new terminology?

Response: The change in terminology, i.e. from Sanitarian to Environmental Health Specialist, does not require a transition process since it is in name only. The change in the law does not affect your registration or require you to re-register to change your name to Registered Environmental Health Specialist. The original approval as a Registered Sanitarian, as long as certification has been maintained, allows you to continue to practice regardless of the new terminology. The Board will propose a revision to clarify that each Registered Sanitarian and Registered Sanitarian Intern on the effective date of the Act shall be a Registered Environmental Health Specialist or a Registered Environmental Health Specialist Intern as applicable on and after the effective date of the act.

--posted April 2009
Back to TOC

1-Question: It is obvious that the REHS Board had some input in the writing of this legislation.  Why was it not distributed to the membership for comment and suggestions prior to being formulated into this law change.  There are changes that could have been made that would have improved the bill such as when convicted of a felony the board would automatically revoke registration.  Why is a suspension and a meeting needed if a conviction is at hand. The board should represent the membership not it's own whims.

Response: Senate Bill 834 was written over a period of approximately 2 years (2003-2004) with input of the NC Environmental Health Supervisors Association, NC Association of Local Health Directors, and Board members. So, yes, the Board had considerable input into the Bill, as well as the other groups mentioned. As such, the proposed changes were posted on the Board’s website for more than a year and shared multiple times with environmental health supervisors and at numerous professional meetings. In addition, each newsletter from 2003 to 2008 included some discussion of the Board’s desire to change the statutes.

During the 2008 session, SB 2060 was introduced, but it was too late in the session to move forward.

SB 834 is different from the original proposed language in two principal ways: 1) it adds 3 additional REHS members to the Board, and 2) it does not contain language for an Oath of Office. Otherwise, there are no substantive changes to the content of the legislation from earlier attempts.

The section dealing with felonies was drafted after considerable discussion and advice of legal counsel. Because there are many felonies that have no impact on the profession or that would not cause undue risk to the public, there is a possibility that conviction of a felony would have nothing to do with an individual’s professional status or undue risk to the public. For this reason, the language contained in SB 834 does not automatically remove an individual’s registration without a hearing.

--posted April 2009
Back to TOC