Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
MOAHR-Rules@michigan.gov  
AGENCY REPORT TO THE  
JOINT COMMITEE ON ADMNINISTRATIVE RULES (JCAR)  
1. Agency Information  
Agency name:  
Labor and Economic Opportunity  
Division/Bureau/Office:  
Michigan Rehabilitative Services  
Name of person completing this form:  
Christina Rea  
Phone number of person completing this form:  
517-247-9553  
E-mail of person completing this form:  
ReaC@michigan.gov  
Name of Department Regulatory Affairs Officer reviewing this form:  
Thomas Shaver  
2. Rule Set Information  
MOAHR assigned rule set number:  
2023-34 LE  
Title of proposed rule set:  
Vocational Rehabilitation  
3. Purpose for the proposed rules and background:  
The Michigan Rehabilitation Services (MRS) rules are being amended to update definitions to align  
with federal regulations and provide clarity, including to modify nondiscrimination statement, to  
update the agency’s process for developing a fee schedule for standardized rates of payment, and to  
bring the rules into conformity with current practice regarding post-employment services.  
4. Summary of proposed rules:  
Michigan Rehabilitation Services (MRS) administrative rules are being amended to update definitions  
to align with federal regulations and provide clarity, modify the general requirements  
nondiscrimination statement, capture the agency’s process for developing a fee schedule for  
standardized rates of payment, and to bring the rules into conformity with current practice regarding  
post-employment services.  
5. List names of newspapers in which the notice of public hearing was published and  
publication dates:  
Lansing State Journal on September 17th, 2023.  
Oakland Press on September 20th, 2023.  
Mining Journal on September 30th, 2023.  
6. Date of publication of rules and notice of public hearing in Michigan Register:  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 2  
10/15/2023  
7. Date, time, and location of public hearing:  
10/18/2023 01:00 PM at Conference Room A , 1048 Pierpont Street, Suite 6, Lansing, MI 48913  
8. Provide the link the agency used to post the regulatory impact statement and cost-benefit  
analysis on its website:  
https://ARS.apps.lara.state.mi.us/Transaction/RFRTransaction?TransactionID=1461  
9. List of the name and title of agency representative(s) who attended the public hearing:  
Tyler Gross, Policy Analyst, Michigan Rehabilitation Services.  
10. Persons submitting comments of support:  
There were no comments submitted in support.  
11. Persons submitting comments of opposition:  
John Sloat of the Client Assistance Program and Disability Rights Michigan.  
12. Persons submitting other comments:  
There were no additional comments submitted.  
13. Identify any changes made to the proposed rules based on comments received during the  
public comment period:  
Name &  
Organization public hearing  
Comments made at Written  
Agency Rationale Rule number  
for Rule Change & citation  
and Description changed  
of Change(s)  
Comments  
Made  
1
John Sloat  
“MRS is  
proposing  
amending its  
definition of the accepts their  
CAP. Neither the recommended  
federal  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
commenter and  
R 395.51(b)  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
Note: all  
references in  
edits to R  
395.51  
language for a  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
regulations  
concerning the  
State Vocational Program (CAP)  
Rehabilitation  
Services  
Program, 34  
C.F.R. § 361, nor Description of  
the federal  
regulations  
concerning the  
definition of the  
Client Assistance to pre-edit  
sections refer  
labeling on  
the strike-  
bold version  
of updated  
rule language.  
This was  
derived from 29  
USC 732(a).  
Changes: MRS  
replaced the  
previous definition many of the  
done because  
CAP, 34 C.F.R. § of CAP with the  
370, contain a definition  
changes are  
on rules  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 3  
definition of the informed by 29  
CAP. Arguably, USC 732(a).  
MRS does not  
need to define the  
CAP – MRS  
could simply  
components  
that are to be  
rescinded and  
do not appear  
on the clean  
draft rules  
rescind the  
language.  
definition.  
If MRS  
nonetheless  
decides to define  
the CAP in the  
MRS  
Administrative  
Rules, its  
definition should  
more closely  
track the  
language in the  
Rehabilitation  
Act that creates  
the CAP. In our  
redline, the CAP  
has proposed a  
revised definition  
that closely tracks  
the language in  
the Rehabilitation  
Act at 29 U.S.C.  
732(a).”  
2
John Sloat  
“MRS is  
proposing  
amendments to  
the definition of the placement of  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
commenter that  
R 395.51(c-d)  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
“Comparable  
services and  
definitions for  
“Comparable  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
benefits,” but the services and  
proposed benefits” and  
amendments do “Competitive  
not sufficiently  
align the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
federal  
integrated  
employment”  
should be swapped  
to preserve  
alphabetical order.  
regulations.  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 4  
MRS agrees with  
Specifically, the the commenter  
MRS definition that adding “at the  
leaves out the  
parts of the  
federal  
time needed to  
ensure the  
progress of the  
individual toward  
regulation, 34  
C.F.R. § 361.5(c) achieving the  
(8)(i), that define employment  
comparable  
services and  
outcome in the  
individual’s IPE  
benefits to be: 1) and that are  
available at the  
time needed to  
commensurate to  
the services” to the  
ensure progress definition of  
toward achieving “Comparable  
the employment services and  
outcome and 2) benefits” is  
commensurate to supported by 34  
the services the CFR 361.5(c)(8)(i)  
individual would  
receive from  
MRS.  
MRS agrees with  
the commenter  
that “for the place  
In the experience of employment”  
of the CAP, MRS should be added to  
counselors and  
managers  
the definition of  
“Competitive  
frequently invoke integrated  
“comparable  
services and  
employment” for  
consistency with  
benefits” without 34 CFR 361.5(c)  
recognizing these (9)(i)(A).  
critical elements  
of the definition. MRS agrees with  
MRS counselors the commenter  
and managers  
that adding the  
will suggest that a language “to the  
client simply look same extent that  
elsewhere for  
resources without are not individuals  
attempting to with disabilities  
employees who  
determine if such and who are in  
resources actually comparable  
exist, much less positions interact  
whether they will with these  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 5  
be available at the persons.” to be  
time needed or included in the  
whether they are definition of  
commensurate to “Competitive  
the service MRS integrated  
would otherwise employment” is  
provide. In fact, supported by  
this was one of  
federal  
the issues raised regulations.  
in a recent MRS  
hearing. MRS  
Description of  
simply urged the changes:  
eligible  
individual to seek MRS added “at the  
other resources  
time needed to  
without helping ensure the  
the individual  
find any such  
resources,  
progress of the  
individual toward  
achieving the  
without regard to employment  
whether any such outcome in the  
resources would individual’s IPE  
be available at the and that are  
time needed, and commensurate to  
without regard to the services” to the  
whether they  
would be  
commensurate  
with services  
MRS would  
otherwise  
definition of  
“Comparable  
services and  
benefits”  
MRS swapped the  
provide. In fact, placement of  
MRS suggested definitions for  
that the  
individual seek  
loans, which  
“Comparable  
services and  
benefits” and  
would plainly not “Competitive  
be commensurate integrated  
with MRS  
employment”.  
services. The  
silence of the  
MRS  
MRS added “for  
the place of  
Administrative  
Rule on central  
aspects of the  
federal  
employment” to  
the definition of  
“Competitive  
integrated  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 6  
regulations  
employment”.  
undoubtedly  
contributes to the MRS added “to  
problems the the same extent  
CAP has seen.” that employees  
-------------------- who are not  
individuals with  
“Please note that disabilities and  
if the definitions who are in  
are supposed to comparable  
be in alphabetical positions interact  
order,  
with these  
“Comparable  
services and  
persons.” to the  
definition of  
benefits” should “Competitive  
come before  
“Competitive  
integrated  
integrated  
employment”  
employment.”  
MRS is  
proposing  
amendments to  
the definition of  
“Competitive  
integrated  
employment,” but  
the proposed  
amendments do  
not sufficiently  
align the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
federal  
regulations.  
The CAP is  
proposing adding  
“for the place of  
employment” at  
the end of R  
395.51(c)(i)(A).  
This is the  
language used in  
the definition of  
“competitive  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 7  
integrated  
employment” in  
the federal  
regulations at 34  
C.F.R. § 361.5(c)  
(9)(i)(A). This  
clarification  
matters because  
the applicable  
minimum wage  
law may depend  
on the place of  
employment.  
The CAP is  
proposing  
substantial  
revisions to R  
395.51(c)(ii)  
because the  
language that  
MRS is using: 1)  
conflicts with the  
federal  
regulations, and  
2) is incoherent.  
The MRS  
language requires  
that the work is at  
a location where  
the employee  
interacts with  
other individuals  
who are not  
individuals with  
disabilities. This  
could be read as  
excluding work  
that does not  
involve  
interactions with  
individuals other  
than the  
employee’s  
supervisor. This  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 8  
is not what the  
federal  
regulations  
require. The  
problem is that  
the MRS  
language in the  
first sentence is  
missing language  
in the federal  
regulations that  
says, “to the same  
extent that  
employees who  
are not  
individuals with  
disabilities and  
who are in  
comparable  
positions interact  
with these  
persons.” In other  
words, MRS’s  
language requires  
that the work  
involves  
interaction with  
persons who do  
not have  
disabilities,  
whereas the  
federal  
regulations only  
require that the  
work involves the  
same level of  
such interaction  
that non-disabled  
employees in the  
same job would  
have. MRS  
cannot impose a  
more restrictive  
definition of  
“competitive  
integrated  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 9  
employment”  
than the one  
found in the  
federal  
regulations.  
MRS has  
included the  
language missing  
from the first  
sentence of this  
paragraph in the  
second sentence,  
but the language  
does not belong  
in this sentence.  
The second  
sentence in this  
paragraph does  
not make any  
sense.”  
3
John Sloat  
“MRS is  
proposing  
Rationale: Given R 395.51(j)  
that R 395.71(h)  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
rescinding R  
395.83, but the  
proposed  
still utilizes the  
term “post-  
employment  
(j) is the  
newly added  
definition for  
post-  
amendments do services”, MRS  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
not sufficiently  
align the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
federal  
agrees with the  
commenter that  
providing a  
definition for the  
term in 395.51 is  
warranted.  
employment  
services.  
regulations.  
While the  
existing MRS  
Administrative  
Description of  
Change: MRS has  
updated the  
Rules concerning proposed rule  
post-employment language to  
services are  
flawed and  
should be  
include a  
definition of “post  
-employment  
rescinded, the  
federal  
regulations  
provide that an  
services” that is  
consistent with 34  
CFR 361.46(c).  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 10  
IPE must contain,  
as necessary,  
statements  
concerning an  
eligible  
individual’s need  
for post-  
employment  
services.  
MRS’s proposed  
amendments  
leave only one  
reference to post-  
employment  
services in the  
Administrative  
Rules, at R  
395.71(h)  
(“Required  
components of  
IPE”) (“As  
determined to be  
necessary, a  
statement of  
projected need  
for post-  
employment  
services.”)  
Because there are  
no other  
references to  
“post-  
employment  
services” in the  
revised MRS  
Administrative  
Rules, a person  
reading the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules will not  
know what post-  
employment  
services are.  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 11  
One way to  
address this  
would be to add  
the definition of  
“Post-  
employment  
services” from  
the federal  
regulations, 34  
C.F.R. § 361.46  
(c), to the MRS  
Administrative  
Rule definitions.  
An appropriate  
version of the  
definition would  
be: “Post-  
employment  
services means  
one or more  
vocational  
rehabilitation  
services that are  
provided  
subsequent to the  
achievement of  
an employment  
outcome and that  
are necessary for  
an individual to  
maintain, regain,  
or advance in  
employment,  
consistent with  
the individual’s  
unique strengths,  
resources,  
priorities,  
concerns,  
abilities,  
capabilities,  
interests, and  
informed  
choice.” (This  
proposed  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 12  
definition is  
derived from 34  
C.F.R. § 361.5(c)  
(41).)”  
4
John Sloat  
“MRS is not  
proposing any  
amendments to  
the definition of inclusion of the  
“employment language  
outcome,” but the “advancing in”  
current MRS and replacing  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
commenter that  
R 395.51(f)  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
definition is not “competitive  
aligned with the employment in the  
federal  
regulations.  
integrated labor  
market” with  
“competitive  
The “employment integrated  
outcome” is a  
employment” is  
central concept in consistent with  
the Rehabilitation post-2014  
Act and the  
federal  
Department of  
Education  
regulations. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.5(c)  
(15). Every  
eligible  
guidance.  
Description of  
change: MRS has  
included the  
individual is  
required to have language  
an individualized “advancing in”  
plan for  
employment  
and replaced  
“competitive  
(“IPE”) and that employment in the  
IPE must be  
designed to  
integrated labor  
market” with  
achieve a specific “competitive  
employment integrated  
outcome. Under employment” in  
the federal the definition for  
regulations, the “Employment  
employment  
outcome is, in  
turn, defined as  
entering,  
outcome”  
advancing in, or  
retaining  
competitive  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 13  
integrated  
employment (a  
definition in the  
MRS rules  
discussed earlier  
in these  
comments).  
The current MRS  
definition of  
“employment  
outcome” is fairly  
close to the  
definition that  
existed in the  
federal  
regulations in  
2014. However,  
the United States  
Department of  
Education  
amended the  
definition in 2016  
to implement  
changes to the  
Rehabilitation  
Act as amended  
by the Workforce  
Innovation and  
Opportunity Act.  
State Vocational  
Rehabilitation  
Services  
Program, 81 Fed.  
Reg. 55,630  
(Aug. 19, 2016).  
It appears that the  
definition in the  
MRS  
Administrative  
Rules has never  
been amended to  
reflect these  
changes.  
One of the  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 14  
important 2016  
amendments to  
the definition was  
the addition of  
the words  
“advancing in.”  
As the  
Department of  
Education  
explained in the  
Federal Register  
when publishing  
the final  
amendment, the  
vocational  
rehabilitation  
program is not  
intended solely to  
place individuals  
in entry-level  
jobs, but rather to  
assist them to  
obtain  
employment that  
is appropriate  
given their  
unique strengths,  
resources,  
priorities,  
concerns,  
abilities,  
capabilities, and  
informed choice.  
State Vocational  
Rehabilitation  
Services  
Program, 81 Fed.  
Reg. 55,671-72  
(Aug. 19, 2016).  
Part of MRS’s  
purpose is to  
assist eligible  
individuals to  
advance in their  
careers. But  
MRS’s definition  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 15  
of “employment  
outcome” has not  
been amended in  
the past seven  
years to add this  
important  
“advancing in”  
language.  
The absence of  
the “advancing  
in” language in  
this definition ties  
directly to the  
problems  
discussed below  
with respect to  
definitions (h),  
(m), (p), (q), (r),  
and MRS  
Administrative  
Rule R 395.65  
(“Individuals  
employed at  
intake”).  
Another crucial  
amendment to the  
definition was the  
addition of the  
term “competitive  
integrated  
employment.”  
This term is  
arguably one of  
the central  
foundations of  
the Rehabilitation  
Act  
, and this term is  
an essential  
aspect of the  
definition of the  
employment  
outcome. But the  
current MRS  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 16  
Administrative  
Rules do not use  
this term in their  
definition of  
“employment  
outcome.” The  
use of the phrase  
“competitive  
employment in  
the integrated  
labor market” is  
not a substitute  
for using the  
defined term  
“competitive  
integrated  
employment,”  
which contains  
very specific  
requirements.  
The CAP is also  
putting the  
reference to  
customized  
employment, self  
-employment,  
telecommuting,  
or business  
ownership into a  
parenthetical after  
“competitive  
integrated  
employment,”  
which mirrors the  
definition in the  
federal  
regulations. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.5(c)  
(15). Written this  
way, it is clear  
that these are  
types of  
competitive  
integrated  
employment.”  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 17  
5
John Sloat  
MRS is not  
proposing any  
amendments to  
the definition of cross referencing  
“individualized to the full  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
commenter that  
R 395.51(g)  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
plan for  
description of  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
employment,” but “IPE” as  
the current MRS elaborated on in R  
definition is not 395.67 – R.  
aligned with the 395.71 is a  
federal  
preferred  
regulations.  
definition to the  
truncated  
The federal  
definition as  
regulations do not established in  
contain a  
current MRS rules.  
definition of the  
“individualized Description of  
plan for  
employment.”  
Instead, the  
Change: MRS has  
cross referenced to  
the full description  
of “IPE” as  
federal  
regulations  
contain two  
elaborated on in R  
395.67 – R  
extensive  
395.71.  
sections:  
Development of  
the individualized  
plan for  
employment, 34  
C.F.R. § 361.45,  
and Content of  
the individualized  
plan for  
employment, 34  
C.F.R. § 361.46.  
As noted above,  
the individualized  
plan for  
employment or  
“IPE,” is central  
to the provision  
of vocational  
rehabilitation  
services under the  
Rehabilitation  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 18  
Act.  
The problem with  
MRS’s definition  
is that it does not  
begin to capture  
the extensive  
requirements  
applicable to the  
development and  
content of an IPE.  
For example, the  
federal  
regulations  
provide that an  
IPE must contain  
a description of  
the criteria that  
will be used to  
evaluate progress  
toward  
achievement of  
the employment  
outcome. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.46  
(a)(6). But  
someone reading  
the definition in  
the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules would have  
no idea that this  
is true. While the  
MRS  
Administrative  
Rules also  
contain sections  
on the  
development and  
content of an IPE,  
the problem is  
that this truncated  
definition is so  
incomplete that it  
arguably serves  
no purpose and  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 19  
someone who did  
not read the rules  
carefully enough  
might  
fundamentally  
misunderstand  
what  
an IPE involves.  
In addition,  
MRS’s definition  
of “IPE”  
repeatedly uses  
the term  
“Employment  
goal,” which is  
not a defined  
term in either the  
federal  
regulations or the  
MRS  
Administrative  
Rules. If MRS  
continues to  
believe it is  
appropriate to try  
to define  
“individualized  
plan for  
employment,” it  
would be far  
better to use the  
defined term  
“employment  
outcome,”  
thereby more  
closely aligning  
the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
federal  
regulations and  
making the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules more  
internally  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 20  
coherent.  
For the reasons  
set forth above,  
the CAP proposes  
that MRS amends  
this rule to simply  
be a cross-  
reference to the  
MRS  
Administrative  
Rules concerning  
the IPE.”  
6
John Sloat  
“MRS is  
proposing  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
R 395.51(h);  
R 395.51(l);  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
amendments to  
commenter that R R 395.51(o);  
the definitions of 395.65 and all  
“Job in jeopardy” associated  
and “Seasonal definitions used  
employment,” but exclusively in R  
the proposed 395.65 (“Job in  
amendments do jeopardy”,  
not sufficiently  
align the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
federal  
R 395.51(p);  
R 395.51(q);  
R 395.65  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
Note: all  
references in  
this item refer  
to pre-edit  
labeling on  
the strike-  
“seasonal  
employment”,  
“temporary  
employment”,  
“underemploymen bold version  
t”, and “Unsteady of updated  
regulations.  
employment”)  
should be  
rule language.  
The definitions  
above ((h), (m), rescinded to  
(p), (q), and (r)) comply with  
should be  
federal regulations  
rescinded from  
the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules because  
and thanks the  
commenter for  
bringing this to  
our attention  
these definitions during public  
only relate to  
MRS  
comment.  
Administrative  
Rule R 395.65  
(“Individuals  
employed at  
Description of  
Change: MRS has  
updated proposed  
rule language to  
intake”) and this rescind R 395.65  
rule should be and all associated  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 21  
rescinded because definitions used  
all parts of this  
rule  
have been  
exclusively in R  
395.65 (“Job in  
jeopardy”,  
prohibited under “seasonal  
the federal  
employment”,  
regulations since “temporary  
2016. State  
employment”,  
Vocational  
Rehabilitation  
Services  
“underemploymen  
t”, and “Unsteady  
employment”).  
Program, 81 Fed.  
Reg. 55,672-73  
(Aug. 19, 2016).  
As noted above,  
in 2016 – seven  
years ago – the  
United States  
Department of  
Education  
amended the  
federal  
regulations. One  
of these  
amendments  
provided that  
state vocational  
rehabilitation  
agencies must  
ensure that their  
eligibility  
requirements are  
applied without  
regard to the  
applicant’s  
current  
employment  
status. 34 C.F.R.  
§ 361.42(c)(2)(ii)  
(E).  
However, MRS  
Administrative  
Rule R 395.65  
currently  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 22  
provides that an  
“individual with a  
disability who is  
employed may be  
eligible for MRS  
services if, as a  
result of his or  
her disability, his  
or her  
employment does  
any of the  
following: (a)  
endangers the  
health and safety  
of the individual  
or others, (b) is in  
jeopardy, (c) is  
unsteady, (d)  
results in  
significant  
underemploymen  
t and needed  
services cannot  
be obtained from  
other agencies or  
resources.” This  
MRS  
Administrative  
Rule puts  
conditions on the  
eligibility of an  
applicant  
employed at  
intake, which  
means MRS  
considers the  
applicant’s  
employment  
status when  
determining  
eligibility. This  
has been  
expressly  
prohibited by the  
federal  
regulations for  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 23  
the past seven  
years.  
In the CAP’s  
experience, MRS  
counselors and  
managers still  
consider an  
applicant’s  
current  
employment  
status when  
determining  
eligibility. This  
year, in 2023, the  
CAP advocated  
on behalf of an  
applicant who  
applied for MRS  
services in April  
of 2022. Under  
the federal  
regulations, MRS  
is required to  
make eligibility  
determinations  
within 60 days  
absent  
exceptional and  
unforeseen  
circumstances. In  
early March 2023  
– eleven months  
later – MRS still  
had not made an  
eligibility  
determination  
with respect to  
this individual.  
During this delay,  
in October 2022,  
the MRS  
counselor wrote  
to the individual  
and advised that  
the counselor’s  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 24  
management  
needed to inquire  
about the  
individual’s  
current job status  
and whether the  
individual’s job  
was in jeopardy.  
In early March  
2023, MRS  
advised the  
individual and the  
CAP that MRS  
anticipated  
determining the  
individual was  
not eligible for  
services because  
his job was not in  
jeopardy. It was  
evident that  
neither the  
counselor nor the  
managers directly  
involved  
understood that  
the federal  
regulations  
prohibit denying  
eligibility on this  
basis.  
It seems odd that  
MRS would  
bother to make  
minor edits to  
two of these  
definitions, which  
serve no purpose  
other than as part  
of a rule that the  
federal  
regulations have  
prohibited since  
2016.  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 25  
MRS should  
rescind MRS  
Administrative  
Rule R 395.65  
and the  
definitions listed  
above.”  
7
John Sloat  
“MRS is  
proposing  
amendments to  
the definition of the word  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
commenter that  
R 395.51(m)  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
“substantial  
impediment to  
“materially” in the  
definition of  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
employment,” but “Substantial  
the proposed impediment to  
amendments do employment”  
not sufficiently  
align the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
federal  
potentially  
imposes more  
restrictive  
eligibility  
requirements than  
federal regulations  
(34 CFR 361.42(c)  
(52)) and should  
be rescinded.  
regulations.  
First, the MRS  
definition  
includes the word Additionally, MRS  
“materially” agrees that  
before the word inclusion of the  
“hinders,” but the phrases “entering  
definition in the into” and  
federal  
regulations, 34  
“advancing in” are  
consistent with the  
C.F.R. § 361.42 requirements of 34  
(c)(52), does not CFR 361.42(c)  
include  
(52).  
“materially.” The  
word “materially” Description of  
is defined as Change: MRS has  
“substantially,” removed the word  
“considerably,” or “materially” and  
“to an important added the words  
degree.” This  
word is important and “advancing  
because this in” to the proposed  
“entering into”  
defined phrase is rule language.  
part of one of the  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 26  
three basic  
requirements for  
eligibility. Under  
the current MRS  
definition, there  
could be an  
argument about  
whether an  
applicant’s  
impairment  
hinders them  
“substantially” –  
but the federal  
regulations don’t  
require this – they  
only require that  
the impairment  
hinders the  
applicant. MRS’s  
definition makes  
MRS’s  
determination of  
eligibility  
potentially more  
restrictive than  
the federal  
regulations, and  
MRS is not  
permitted to do  
this.  
Second, the MRS  
definition does  
not include the  
terms “entering  
into” or  
“advancing in”  
that are included  
in the definition  
in the federal  
regulations. The  
absence of the  
phrase  
“advancing in” is  
particularly  
important, for the  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 27  
reasons discussed  
above in the  
CAP’s comments  
on the definition  
of “employment  
outcome.””  
8
John Sloat  
“MRS is not  
proposing any  
amendments to  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
commenter that  
R 395.51(n);  
R 395.79  
Disability  
Rights  
the definition of the term  
Michigan  
“substantial  
“substantial  
services,” but the services” does not  
current MRS appear in the  
definition is not federal regulations  
aligned with the and should be  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
federal  
regulations.  
rescinded from  
both 395.51(n) and  
R 395.79.  
The federal  
regulations do not Description of  
include the term Change: MRS has  
“substantial  
services” or  
anything  
resembling it.  
The term  
updated the  
proposed rule  
language to  
rescind the  
definition of  
“Substantial  
“substantial  
services” is only services”.  
used once in the  
MRS  
Administrative  
Rules, in R  
395.79  
(“Rehabilitated  
case closure”),  
which MRS has  
proposed  
amending as part  
of this Request  
for Rulemaking.  
As explained  
below in the  
CAP’s comments  
on MRS’s  
proposed  
amendments to  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 28  
that rule, the  
federal  
regulations  
concerning case  
closure do not  
contain  
language  
comparable to  
“substantial  
services,” and it  
is difficult to  
understand the  
purpose of  
including such  
language. MRS  
should rescind  
the definition of  
“substantial  
services.””  
9
John Sloat  
“MRS is  
proposing  
amendments to  
the definition of referencing the  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
commenter that  
R 395.51(r)  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
“Vocational  
federal  
rehabilitation  
regulation’s (34  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
services,” but the CFR 361.48 Scope  
proposed of vocational  
amendments do rehabilitation  
not sufficiently  
align the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
federal  
services for  
individuals with  
disabilities and 34  
CFR 361.49 Scope  
of vocational  
regulations.  
rehabilitation  
services for groups  
of individuals with  
disabilities)  
definitions of what  
services are  
included in the  
term “Vocation  
rehabilitation  
The federal  
regulations  
contain a  
definition of  
“vocational  
rehabilitation  
services,” 34  
C.F.R. § 361.42 services” or  
(c)(57), that “VRS” is  
incorporates the preferable to  
list of services listing an internal  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 29  
contained in  
“Scope of  
vocational  
rehabilitation  
services for  
MRS policy  
manual document.  
As the commenter  
points out, this  
creates uniformity  
individuals with in how “VRS” and  
disabilities,” 34 “Pre-ETS”  
C.F.R. § 361.48, reference scope of  
and “Scope of  
vocational  
services in MRS  
rule definitions.  
rehabilitation  
services for  
groups of  
Description of  
Changes: MRS  
individuals with has altered the  
disabilities,” 34 proposed  
C.F.R. § 361.49. definition of  
These federal  
regulations  
“VRS” to  
reference the  
require the state federal regulations  
vocational  
application to  
rehabilitation  
scope of VRS to  
agency to ensure individuals or  
that the specific groups of  
services listed are individuals.  
available to  
eligible  
individuals.  
However, these  
services are not  
listed anywhere  
in the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules.  
It is the view of  
the CAP that,  
under Michigan  
law, MRS must  
implement this  
list of services  
through a formal  
rule-making  
process. The  
federal  
regulations  
provide that MRS  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 30  
must develop and  
maintain written  
policies covering  
the nature and  
scope of each of  
the vocational  
rehabilitation  
services specified  
under 34 C.F.R. §  
361.48 and the  
criteria under  
which each  
service is  
provided. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.50.  
In Spear v.  
Michigan  
Rehabilitation  
Services, 202  
Mich. App. 1, 4-5  
(1993), the Court  
of Appeals of  
Michigan held  
that MRS was  
required to  
implement a  
needs test  
through a formal  
rule-making  
process where the  
federal  
regulations  
required the state  
to maintain  
written policies  
with respect to  
any needs test.  
The issue in  
Spears is  
analogous to the  
federal  
requirements  
concerning  
written policies  
covering the list  
of vocational  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 31  
rehabilitation  
services.  
Publishing the list  
in the MRS  
Rehabilitation  
Services Manual  
is not  
implementation  
through a formal  
rule-making  
process.  
The CAP is  
proposing that  
MRS amend this  
Administrative  
Rule to  
incorporate the  
services set forth  
in the federal  
regulations. In  
fact, in this  
Request for  
Rulemaking,  
MRS has created  
a new definition,  
“Pre  
-employment  
transition  
services,” that  
does exactly this  
for pre-  
employment  
transition  
services.”  
10  
John Sloat  
“MRS is  
proposing  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
R 395.53  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
amendments to R commenter that R  
395.53  
395.53 should be  
altered to mirror  
the language of 34  
“Purpose,” but  
the proposed  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
amendments do CFR 361.1(b), and  
not sufficiently  
align the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
agrees with the  
addition of the  
term “unique” to  
accompany the  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 32  
federal  
language  
regulations.  
concerning an  
individual’s  
strengths,  
The federal  
regulations also resources,  
contain a  
priorities,  
“purpose”  
concerns, abilities,  
section. 34 C.F.R. capabilities,  
§ 361.1. The interests, and  
CAP’s proposed informed choice,  
revisions to and update what  
subpart (1) mirror federal regulations  
the language in require of an IPE,  
34 C.F.R. § 361.1 including  
(b), and align the providing services  
MRS  
in accordance with  
the IPE, each IPE  
being designed to  
achieve a specific  
employment  
outcome selected  
by the customer  
consistent with the  
customer’s unique  
strengths,  
Administrative  
Rule with the  
federal  
regulation.  
Neither the  
Rehabilitation  
Act, 29 U.S.C.  
701(b), nor the  
federal  
regulations refer resources,  
to an employment priorities,  
outcome in their concerns, abilities,  
purpose sections. capabilities,  
Instead, both  
interests, and  
refer to the goals informed choice  
of competitive  
integrated  
and that each IPE  
must include a  
employment and description of the  
economic self- specific vocational  
sufficiency. This rehabilitation  
makes sense  
services needed to  
because the term achieve the  
“employment  
employment  
outcome” is itself outcome.  
defined by the  
goal of  
Description of  
competitive  
integrated  
employment.  
-
Changes: MRS  
has altered  
proposed language  
for R 395.53 to  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 33  
Similarly, in the mirror the  
federal language of 34  
regulations, the CFR 361.1(b),  
word “unique”  
always  
added the term  
“unique” to  
accompanies the accompany the  
language  
language  
concerning an  
individual’s  
strengths,  
concerning an  
individual’s  
strengths,  
resources,  
priorities,  
resources,  
priorities,  
concerns,  
abilities,  
capabilities,  
interests, and  
concerns, abilities,  
capabilities,  
interests, and  
informed choice,  
informed choice. and updated what  
-
federal regulations  
require of an IPE,  
including  
providing services  
in accordance with  
the IPE, each IPE  
Neither the  
Rehabilitation  
Act nor the  
federal  
regulations  
contain language being designed to  
in their purpose achieve a specific  
sections  
employment  
resembling the  
language in  
outcome selected  
by the customer  
MRS’s R 395.53 consistent with the  
subpart (4). This customer’s unique  
language could  
be rescinded.  
strengths,  
resources,  
However, if MRS priorities,  
decides to retain concerns, abilities,  
this language, it capabilities,  
must be revised interests, and  
to be consistent informed choice  
with the federal and that each IPE  
regulations  
must include a  
because MRS’s description of the  
language  
fundamentally  
specific vocational  
rehabilitation  
mischaracterizes services needed to  
key elements of achieve the  
what the  
Rehabilitation  
employment  
outcome.  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 34  
Act requires.  
“The MRS  
process is based  
on an IPE that is  
oriented to an  
individual’s  
achievement of a  
vocational goal.”  
The rule uses the  
term “vocational  
goal,” which is  
not a defined  
term in the MRS  
rules (and the  
term does not  
appear in the  
federal  
regulations)  
instead of using  
the term  
“employment  
outcome,” which  
is a core term in  
the federal  
regulations.  
It is too weak to  
say that an IPE is  
“oriented to an  
individual’s  
achievement of  
[an employment  
outcome].” The  
federal  
regulations  
provide that an  
IPE must be  
designed to  
achieve a specific  
employment  
outcome. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.45  
(b)(2).  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 35  
The current MRS  
rule fails to  
acknowledge that  
the customer  
choses the  
employment  
outcome. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.46  
(a)(1).  
“Services  
provided must be  
essential to  
overcome the  
vocational  
impediment and  
must be provided  
at the least cost to  
meet the  
individual’s  
rehabilitation  
needs.”  
The federal  
regulations do not  
provide that  
services must be  
essential “to  
overcome the  
vocational  
impediment.”  
This is  
particularly  
concerning  
because it is  
unclear what is  
meant by  
“vocational  
impediment.”  
This term is not  
used anywhere  
else in the MRS  
rules, and it never  
appears in the  
federal  
regulations.  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 36  
While it is the  
case that, in order  
to be eligible for  
vocational  
rehabilitation  
services, there  
must be  
determinations  
that the applicant  
has a physical or  
mental  
impairment and  
that the  
impairment  
constitutes or  
results in a  
substantial  
impediment to  
employment,  
MRS is not  
permitted to limit  
services to those  
that directly  
address how the  
impairment  
constitutes or  
results in a  
substantial  
impediment to  
employment.  
Vocational  
rehabilitation  
services must be  
needed to achieve  
the employment  
outcome, but they  
are not required  
to be “essential to  
overcome the  
vocational  
impediment.”  
This MRS rule  
appears to limit  
services in a  
manner  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 37  
prohibited by the  
federal  
regulations.  
The language in  
the MRS rule  
providing that  
services “must be  
provided at the  
least cost to meet  
the individual’s  
rehabilitation  
needs” is not  
required by the  
federal  
regulations. In the  
CAP’s  
experience, MRS  
personnel apply  
this language in a  
manner that is  
inconsistent with  
the purposes of  
the Rehabilitation  
Act.  
This “least cost”  
language does not  
appear anywhere  
in the federal  
regulations  
governing the  
State Vocational  
Rehabilitation  
Services  
Program, 34  
C.F.R. § 361, and  
it does not appear  
in the federal  
regulations  
concerning  
Uniform  
Administrative  
Requirements,  
Cost Principles,  
and Audit  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 38  
Requirements for  
Federal Awards, 2  
C.F.R. § 200.  
The CAP’s  
experience is that  
MRS personnel  
focus on the  
words “least  
cost” in this  
policy and give  
insufficient  
consideration to  
the quality of the  
services provided  
by the “least  
cost” option or  
whether the “least  
cost” service will  
actually meet the  
individual’s  
specific  
vocational  
rehabilitation  
needs.  
The Uniform  
Administrative  
Requirements,  
Cost Principles,  
and Audit  
Requirements for  
Federal Awards  
contain a section,  
“Reasonable  
costs,” 2 C.F.R. §  
200.404, that  
would provide a  
more appropriate  
rule.”  
11  
John Sloat  
“Much of this  
Rationale: MRS  
R 395.54(1)  
language appears agrees that the  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
to be derived  
from 29 U.S.C.  
section 3248.  
Absent any  
language  
regarding  
“participant  
status” and  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 39  
further  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
“certain non-  
explanation, it is citizens” could be  
difficult to know altered to add  
what the added  
term “participant  
status” means.  
clarity.  
Description of  
Within the U.S. Change:  
Code (as cited by MRS has altered  
MRS in the  
proposed  
the sentence  
structure to  
amendment), it  
provide additional  
appears to refer to information of  
discrimination  
against  
what “participant  
status” entails and  
individuals who corrected the  
are participants in sentence structure  
programs or  
to fix the “certain  
non-citizens”  
grammatical issue.  
activities that  
receive funds  
under the  
Workforce  
Innovation and  
Opportunity Act  
because of the  
individual’s status  
as a participant.  
The grammar of  
this sentence is  
also confusing  
because it is  
constructed to  
read as follows:  
“MRS shall not  
discriminate on  
the basis of …  
certain non-  
citizens as  
defined by  
section 188 of the  
workforce  
innovation and  
opportunity act,  
29 USC 3248.””  
“MRS is  
12  
John Sloat  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
R 395.54(2)  
proposing  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 40  
Disability  
Rights  
amendments to R commenter that  
395.54 subsection the federal  
Michigan  
(2), but the  
proposed  
regulations (34  
CFR 361.42(c)(1))  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
amendments do that prohibit  
not sufficiently  
align the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
federal  
imposing a  
duration of  
residence  
requirement apply  
to eligibility  
determination,  
which occurs  
before an IPE is  
generated.  
regulations.  
The federal  
regulations  
provide that MRS  
must not impose, Description of  
as part of  
Changes: MRS  
has altered the  
proposed rule to  
make clear that  
MRS is prohibited  
determining  
eligibility, a  
duration of  
residence  
requirement that by federal  
excludes from  
services any  
regulations from  
imposing a  
applicant who is duration of  
present in the residence  
state. 34 C.F.R. § requirement when  
361.42(c)(1).  
determining  
eligibility for  
This MRS rule is services.  
incoherent when  
considered in  
comparison to the  
federal  
regulations, and  
MRS’s proposed  
revision does not  
address the  
problem. The  
main issue is that  
an individual  
does not develop  
an individualized  
plan for  
employment until  
after MRS has  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 41  
determined that  
the individual is  
eligible for  
services. MRS  
must provide  
services to  
eligible  
individuals, and  
MRS cannot  
impose a duration  
of residency  
requirement as  
part of its  
eligibility  
determinations.  
Since an IPE does  
not exist until  
after the  
eligibility  
determination, it  
does not make  
sense to talk  
about a duration  
of residence  
requirement  
excluding an  
individual “from  
services under the  
IPE.”  
The CAP’s  
proposed  
language more  
closely tracks the  
federal  
regulations.”  
“MRS is not  
proposing any  
13  
John Sloat  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
R 395.54(6)  
Disability  
Rights  
amendments to R commenter that  
395.54 subsection MRS may not  
Michigan  
(6), but the  
current MRS  
impose a duration  
of residence  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
definition is not requirement,  
aligned with the which the word  
federal  
“permanent”  
regulations.  
unintentionally  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 42  
could imply, and  
As noted above, agrees that it is not  
and as recognized permitted under  
in the MRS rules, federal regulations  
MRS may not  
impose a duration or customer for  
of residency proof of  
to ask an applicant  
requirement. 34 permanent  
C.F.R. § 361.42 residency.  
(c)(1).  
Description of  
Changes: MRS  
Furthermore,  
under the federal has removed the  
regulations, MRS work  
may not require “permanently” in  
an applicant to  
demonstrate a  
presence in the  
State through the  
production of any  
documentation  
that under state or  
local law, or  
the drafted rule  
language.  
practical  
circumstances,  
results in a de  
facto duration of  
residence  
requirement. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.42  
(c)(1).  
Given these  
regulations, it is  
inconsistent with  
the federal  
regulations for  
the MRS rules to  
refer to any  
determinations  
concerning an  
individual’s  
“permanent”  
residence,  
because this  
amounts to a de  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 43  
facto duration of  
residence  
requirement.”  
14  
John Sloat  
“The language in Rationale: MRS  
R 395.54(8)  
the MRS rule  
providing that  
“retroactive  
agrees that  
retroactive  
authorizations are  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
authorizations are permitted through  
prohibited” is not a defined  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
required by the  
federal  
regulations. In the Description of  
CAP’s Changes: MRS  
exception process.  
experience, MRS has updated the  
applies this rule proposed rule to  
in a manner that eliminate the  
is inconsistent  
“retroactive  
with the purposes authorizations are  
of the  
Rehabilitation  
Act  
prohibited”  
language and  
include when  
MRS may  
This “retroactive authorize payment  
authorizations are for services that  
prohibited”  
have already been  
language does not provided.  
appear anywhere  
in the federal  
regulations  
governing the  
State Vocational  
Rehabilitation  
Services  
Program, 34  
C.F.R. § 361, and  
it does not appear  
in the federal  
regulations  
concerning  
Uniform  
Administrative  
Requirements,  
Cost Principles,  
and Audit  
Requirements for  
Federal Awards, 2  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 44  
C.F.R. § 200.  
In the CAP’s  
experience, an  
MRS policy that  
strictly prohibits  
retroactive  
authorizations  
can cause  
avoidable harm to  
MRS customers.  
The CAP has  
repeatedly seen  
situations where  
timely  
authorizations  
were not made  
for services that  
were expressly  
contemplated in  
the IPE due to  
delays outside of  
the eligible  
individual’s  
control –  
including  
situations where  
MRS personnel  
were involved in  
the delays. MRS  
managers then  
take the position  
that this  
retroactive  
authorization rule  
prohibits taking  
any action to pay  
for the needed  
services.  
In order to  
address this  
reoccurring  
problem, MRS  
policy should  
include  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 45  
provisions that  
allow for  
exceptions to this  
rule where the  
service is  
contained in the  
individual’s IPE  
and where the  
individual made  
reasonable efforts  
to ensure MRS  
was able to make  
a timely  
authorization.  
In addition, under  
the federal  
regulations, MRS  
is required to  
establish policies  
related to the  
timely  
authorization of  
services, 34  
C.F.R. § 361.50  
(e), but the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules do not  
contain any such  
policies.”  
15  
John Sloat  
“MRS is  
proposing  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
R 395.54(9)  
Disability  
Rights  
amendments to R commenter that  
395.54 subsection the language  
Michigan  
(9), but the  
proposed  
“goods and  
services must be  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
amendments do explored by the  
not sufficiently  
align the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
federal  
individual” is  
unclear, that MRS  
customers may  
develop all or part  
of their IPE  
regulations.  
without the  
assistance of  
It is unclear what MRS, and that rule  
is meant by language in  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 46  
“goods and  
alignment with 34  
services must be CFR 361.45(d)(2)  
explored by the is preferable.  
individual.”  
There is no  
Description of  
comparable rule Changes: MRS  
in the federal  
regulations.  
has altered the rule  
to remove the  
unclear language  
of “goods and  
services must be  
The federal  
regulations  
provide that MRS explored by the  
must ensure that individual”, make  
the IPE is  
developed and  
explicit that MRS  
customers may  
implemented in a develop all or part  
manner that gives of their IPE  
the individual the without the  
opportunity to  
assistance of  
exercise informed MRS, and bring  
choice in  
language into  
selecting the  
specific  
alignment with 34  
CFR 361.45(d)(2)  
vocational  
rehabilitation  
services needed  
to achieve the  
employment  
outcome,  
including the  
settings in which  
services will be  
provided, and the  
entity or entities  
that will provide  
the vocational  
rehabilitation  
services. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.45  
(d)(2).  
It is possible to  
read this MRS  
rule as allowing  
that someone (a  
counselor?) could  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 47  
decide to not  
involve the  
individual in the  
choice of who  
will provide the  
goods and  
services. (The  
individual “may”  
be involved in the  
choice of who  
will provide the  
goods and  
services – under  
this language,  
who decides  
whether the  
individual will be  
involved?)  
The federal  
regulations  
provide that MRS  
must inform  
eligible  
individuals that  
they have the  
option of  
developing all or  
part of their IPE  
without  
assistance from  
MRS. 34 C.F.R. §  
361.45(c)(1)(i).  
This MRS rule  
implies that an  
individual may  
only explore  
goods and  
services (and the  
choice of  
providers) with  
assistance from  
an MRS  
counselor.  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 48  
The language that  
the CAP is  
proposing, which  
comes directly  
from the federal  
regulations, 34  
C.F.R. § 361.45  
(d)(2), does not  
appear anywhere  
else in the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules.”  
16  
John Sloat  
“MRS is  
proposing  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
R 395.54(11)  
Disability  
Rights  
amendments to R commenter that  
395.54 subsection adopting language  
Michigan  
(11), but the  
proposed  
more closely  
consistent with 34  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
amendments do CFR 361.57(b) is  
not sufficiently  
align the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
federal  
appropriate  
regarding the right  
of individuals to  
review MRS  
determinations and  
34 CFR 361.57(b)  
(1)(v) to inform  
regulations.  
The language that individuals of not  
the CAP is just the existence  
proposing more of the CAP, but  
closely tracks the how the CAP  
language of the might assist the  
federal  
individual.  
regulations. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.57 Description of  
(b). For example, Changes: MRS  
the federal  
regulations do not language of the  
use the word proposed rule to  
“redetermination” be more closely  
in this context, consistent with 34  
has altered the  
and the word only CFR 361.57(b)  
appears one other regarding the right  
time in the MRS of individuals to  
Administrative  
Rules. Instead,  
both the  
review MRS  
determinations and  
34 CFR 361.57(b)  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 49  
Rehabilitation  
Act and the  
federal  
regulations  
provide for an  
(1)(v) to inform  
individuals of not  
just the existing of  
the CAP, but how  
the CAP might  
individual’s right assist the  
to review of  
determinations by  
the vocational  
rehabilitation  
agency.  
individual.  
The MRS rule  
does not mention  
the individual’s  
right to pursue  
mediation.  
The MRS rule  
only requires the  
counselor to  
inform the  
individual about  
the “availability”  
of the CAP, but  
the rule does not  
use the language  
of the federal  
regulations that  
requires MRS to  
specify how the  
CAP can assist  
the individual. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.57  
(b)(1)(v).  
The MRS  
Administrative  
Rules contain  
sections that  
provide greater  
detail about the  
review of MRS  
determinations,  
and this rule  
should include a  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 50  
cross reference to  
those rules, as in  
the revisions  
proposed by the  
CAP.”  
17  
John Sloat  
MRS is  
proposing  
amending R  
395.54 to add  
subsection (2),  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
commenter that  
the proposed rule  
must make clear  
R 395.76(2)  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
but the proposed that the values  
rule conflicts established on the  
with the federal fee schedule are  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
regulations.  
not absolute, that  
MRS will permit  
exceptions to the  
fee schedule so  
The federal  
regulations  
provide that the that the needs of  
vocational  
MRS customers  
can be met, and  
that the wording of  
“arbitrary” dollar  
limit should be  
rehabilitation  
agency may  
establish a fee  
schedule if the  
schedule is not so changed to be  
low as to  
consistent with the  
effectively deny requirements of  
an individual a  
federal  
necessary service regulations.  
and if the fee  
schedule is not  
absolute and  
permits  
Description of  
Changes: MRS  
has altered the  
exceptions so that language of the  
individual needs proposed rule to  
can be addressed. make clear that the  
34 C.F.R. §  
361.50(c)(2).  
values established  
on the fee  
schedule are not  
MRS’s proposed absolute, that  
rule states that MRS will permit  
MRS shall only exceptions to the  
authorize  
payment at the  
fee schedule so  
that the needs of  
rate of payment MRS customers  
in the fee can be met, to  
schedule unless remove the  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 51  
there is an  
established  
wording of an  
“arbitrary” dollar  
exception process limit.  
that allows for  
rates of payment  
that deviate from  
the fee schedule.  
This rule reads  
such that MRS  
could determine  
for an individual  
case that there is  
no “established  
exception  
process,” and so  
MRS would then  
only authorize the  
amount in the fee  
schedule. But the  
federal strict  
adherence to the  
fee schedule if  
individual needs  
are not being  
addressed.  
In addition, MRS  
must implement  
any such  
“established  
exception  
process” through  
a formal rule-  
making process  
and conduct  
public meetings  
regarding any  
such process for  
the reasons set  
forth above.  
18  
John Sloat  
“MRS is  
proposing  
Rationale: MRS  
agrees with the  
R 395.79  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
amendments to R commenter that  
395.79, but the  
proposed  
the proposed MRS  
rules need  
amendments do adjusting to  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 52  
The Client  
Assistance  
Program  
not sufficiently  
align the MRS  
Administrative  
Rules with the  
federal  
comply with the  
provisions of 34  
CFR 361.56 and  
that case closure  
depends on the  
definition of  
regulations.  
“employment  
Under the federal outcome”, and the  
regulations,  
determining  
whether an  
content of the  
individual’s IPE.  
individual has  
achieved an  
employment  
Description of  
Changes: MRS  
has adjusted the  
outcome depends language of the  
on the definition proposed rule to  
of “employment comply with the  
outcome,” the  
definition of  
“competitive  
integrated  
provisions of 34  
CFR 361.56  
named by the  
commenter and  
specify that case  
employment,”  
and the content of closure depends  
the individual’s on the definition  
IPE. The federal of “employment  
regulations do not outcome”, and the  
condition  
content of the  
achieving an  
employment  
outcome on all of  
the requirements  
listed in MRS R  
395.79.  
individual’s IPE.  
Instead, the  
federal  
regulations  
include a section  
that addresses  
closing the record  
of an individual  
who has achieved  
an employment  
outcome. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.56.  
The CAP’s  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 53  
proposed  
revisions would  
align MRS R  
395.79 more  
closely with this  
federal  
regulation.  
The federal  
regulation does  
not require  
“substantial  
services under an  
IPE are provided  
and have  
contributed to the  
employment  
outcome.” In fact,  
an individual  
could achieve an  
employment  
outcome without  
MRS providing  
“substantial  
services,” and the  
CAP expects that  
MRS would close  
such a case as  
having achieved  
the employment  
outcome, so it is  
not clear why  
subsection (b) is  
included here.  
The federal  
regulations  
require that a  
record may only  
be closed if the  
individual has  
maintained the  
employment for  
an “appropriate  
period of time”  
necessary to  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 54  
ensure the  
stability of the  
employment  
outcome, 34  
C.F.R. § 361.56  
(b), and this  
period cannot be  
less than 90 days.  
MRS R 395.79  
only requires that  
the employment  
outcome is  
maintained for at  
least 90 days –  
the MRS rule is  
weaker than the  
one required by  
the federal  
regulations.  
In its proposed  
amendment,  
MRS has deleted  
its provision  
concerning  
assessment for  
post-employment  
services. The  
CAP presumes  
this is related to  
MRS’s decision  
to rescind the  
rules on post-  
employment  
services.  
However, as the  
federal  
regulations make  
clear, MRS is  
required to  
inform the  
individual who  
has achieved an  
employment  
outcome of the  
availability of  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 55  
post-employment  
services. 34  
C.F.R. § 361.56  
(d). MRS should  
revise, not delete,  
the reference to  
post-employment  
services here.”  
14.Date report completed:  
11/30/2023  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
;