To ensure that the branch can sufficiently demonstrate that the fees it assesses are reasonable, the department should evaluate the branch's current fee structure using analyses that consider fiscal and workload factors. These analyses should establish a reasonable link between fees charged and the branch's actual costs for regulating those that pay specific fees. Further, the analyses should demonstrate how the branch calculated specific fees.
The Radiologic Health Branch (RHB) has contracted with a professional organization to perform a workload quantitative analysis (QA) on all of the programs operations. The scope of work for this project includes calculating reasonable time expectancies for each program task. The QA will demonstrate the link between the fee and the cost for regulating those subject to the fee. Estimated completion time and issuance of the final report is October 2017.
The Radioactive Health Branch (RHB) has partially addressed the California State Audits (CSA) recommendation by implementing a quantitative analysis on future regulation packages, where fees were involved, as evidenced in two fee packages shown in the following links. The Supporting documents from the official rulemaking file are available at: DPH-07-002 (pages 8-10) http://www.cdph.ca.gov/services/DPOPP/regs/Documents/DPH-07-002-ISOR.pdf and DPH 10-006 (pages 10-12) http://www.cdph.ca.gov/services/DPOPP/regs/Documents/DPH_10_006_ISOR_SOD_EIA_DRU_For_PN.doc. These regulation packages demonstrate the commitment from RHB to implement the fee analysis recommended by CSA. RHB does, and will continue, to consider fiscal and workload factors by performing a quantitative analysis (QA) for all future regulations that include fee proposals. Documentation includes how the fee is developed and calculated, demonstrating the link between the fee and the cost for regulating those that would be subject to the fee. In addition, the RHB is investigating the possibility of hiring a contractor to assist in a QA project for all of the fees shown on page 53 of the CSA audit report, with the expectation of having the project completed in 2017.
The status of this recommendation is unchanged.
To ensure a reasonable link between fees charged and the actual costs associated for administering the program, the Radiologic Health Branch (RHB) has completed and continues to review fiscal and workload analyses. We developed and implemented workload standards that identify responsible classifications, tasks to be accomplished, time, and allocated resources (e.g., on an average, one inspector can perform approximately 300 inspections annually). Based on this information, RHB developed cost and revenue information for the various program components and demonstrated that the fees assessed are appropriate and linked to the actual costs associated with administering the programs.
A recent review of RHB revenues and expenditures continues to support the program assessment and the established fee schedule that was set via regulations in 2005. RHB followed methodologies established at that time in determining fees; the Department of Finance approved the methodologies. RHB fees vary widely based on the processes supported by the fees. The RHB X-ray Section registers facilities and certifies and permits users while the RHB Radioactive Materials Licensing Section licenses facilities and operations. The licensing process is specific for each use and those with higher fees require significantly greater staff time to complete the individual action.
RHB recently adopted two new regulations and followed BSA's recommended approach for developing the fees. Supporting documents from the official rulemaking file are available at:
DPH-07-002 (pages 8-10)
and DPH 10-006 (pages 10-12)
Although the department provided more transparency for how it determined the amounts for two fees it implemented following our audit, a significant portion of its fee structure remains unchanged since our audit. The department provided no evidence that it evaluated the fees we originally discussed in the audit report.
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) disagrees with the auditor's determination that this recommendation is not fully implemented. CDPH believes it has fully implemented this recommendation and resubmits its response from last year.
CDPH Radiologic Health Branch (RHB) completed its evaluation of workload and staffing data. To ensure a reasonable link between fees charged and the actual costs associated for administering the program, CDPH-RHB has completed and continues to conduct routine thorough fiscal and workload analysis. Workload standards were developed and implemented that identify responsible classifications, tasks to be accomplished, time and allocated resources (e.g., on an average, one inspector can perform approximately 300 inspections annually). Based on this information, CDPH-RHB developed cost and revenue information for the various program components and demonstrated that the fees assessed are appropriate and have a link to the actual costs associated with administering the programs.
A recent review of CDPH-RHB revenues and expenditures continues to support the program assessment and the established fee schedule.
In addition, to ensure transparency and accountability when submitting future fee proposals for adoption CDPH-RHB initiates a fiscal and workload analysis for the particular fee proposal. For example, CDPH-RHB recently adopted regulations requiring users of certain devices that contain radioactive material to register as possessing the device and to pay an annual registration fee. The adoption of these regulations also pertained to maintaining regulatory compatibility with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as required by California's agreement with NRC and as specified in law. The following supporting documents, from the official rulemaking file can be accessed at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/services/DPOPP/regs/Pages/DPH07-002GeneralLicenseRequirements.aspx:
1. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
2. Initial Statement of Reasons
3. Proposed Regulation text
The following supporting document is attached to this response:
4. STD-399 including the Cost Estimating Methodology signed by CDPH, Health and Human Services Agency, and the Department of Finance.
Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.