Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules

Administrative Rules Division (ARD)

MOAHR-Rules@michigan.gov

AGENCY REPORT TO THE

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (JCAR)

AGENCY INFORMATION:

Agency name:

Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

Division/Bureau/Office:

Corporations, Securities, & Commercial Licensing

Name of person completing this form:

Mitchell Page

Phone number of person completing this form:

517-241-6659

Email of person completing this form:

PageM6@michigan.gov

Name of Department Regulatory Affairs Officer reviewing this form:

Elizabeth Arasim

RULE SET INFORMATION:

MOAHR assigned rule set number:

2023-80 LR

Title of the proposed rule set:

Private Security Guard and Security Alarm Agencies

1. Purpose of the proposed rules and background:

The general purpose of these rules is to bring more clarity to the regulation of the private security industry. Since the

rules for 1968 PA 330 were rescinded in 2014, standards of practice have become disjointed as it pertains to

advertising, badges and patches, and subcontracting. These rules aim to fix some of that confusion, foster a safer

industry for the public, and establish a fair playing field for licensees.

Specifically, the new rules will lay out badge and uniform requirements, the parameters surrounding advertising and

agency names, and establish clear guidelines for contracting and subcontracting practices.

2. Summary of the proposed rules:

The rules will bring needed clarity to the regulation of the private security industry. They aim to clarify requirements

regarding advertising, badges and patches, and subcontracting, by more clearly laying out badge and uniform

requirements, parameters surrounding advertising and names, and employee and employer responsibilities. The rules

are intended to ensure fairness in the industry and to help protect both the public and those who use private security

services.

3. List names of newspapers in which the notice of public hearing was published and publication

dates:

The Mining Journal – April 18, 2025.

The Grand Rapids Press – April 24, 2025.

The Oakland Press – April 22, 2025.

4. Date of publication of the proposed rules and notice of public hearing in the Michigan Register:

5/15/2025

MCL 24.242 and 24.245

Agency Report to JCAR -Page 2

5. Date, time, and location of the public hearing:

5/20/2025 09:00 AM at Jupiter Room , 2407 N Grand River Ave, Lansing, MI 48906

6. 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=1507

7. List of the name and title of agency representative(s) who attended the public hearing:

Linda Clegg – Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

Bradley Horton – Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

Mitchell Page – Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

8. Persons submitting comments of support:

None.

9. Persons submitting comments of opposition:

None.

10. Persons submitting other comments:

Stephen Alexander, Alliance Risk Mitigation Strategies; Jared Rodriguiez on behalf of the Michigan Association of

Security and Investigative Professionals (“MASIP”); Steve Amitay on behalf of the National Association of Security

Companies (“NASCO”); Michael McDaniel, General Counsel for City Shield Security Services, LLC; Adam Nelson,

Cerberus Security; Joy Pitman, President of Accurate Networks.

11. Identify any changes made to the proposed rules based on comments received during the public

comment period:

Name &

Comments Made at Written Comments

Agency Rationale for Rule Rule Number &

Organization Public Hearing

Change & Description of

Change(s) Made

Citation

Changed

1

Jared

“MASIP requests

Added “except for an

R 28.4002

Rodriguez,

MASIP

clarification regarding employee who is monitoring

whether a badge would a security alarm system” after

satisfy the uniform ꢀ “MCL 338.1052,” in order to

identification

clarify that the uniform

requirement in lieu of requirements are applicable

name patches.

Specifically, can an

employee’s badge

to those who are actively

engaging in the providing of

security services, and not

displaying their name necessarily internal-facing

meet the requirement employees unless they too

to display the

employee's name on

the uniform, or must

are directly providing public-

facing security services in

some way. ꢀ ꢀAmended

the name be “sewn or a sentence to read “The

printed” directly onto uniform must display at least

the garment? ꢀ ꢀ the last name of the

Additionally, MASIP

seeks clarification

employee...” rather than just

“the name of the employee”

regarding non-public- so as to clarify what exactly

facing personnel, such the department is looking for

as administrative staff with this requirement for an

or office workers. Are employee’s patch and

these employees also uniform. Specifically, this is

subject to the uniform an effort to clarify that a

MCL 24.242 and 24.245

Agency Report to JCAR -Page 3

requirement, or is the badge does not satisfy this

rule limited to those

employees actively

engaging in public-

requirement as the rule

states that the uniform itself

needs to display at least a

facing or field duties?” last name, whether that be

directly sewn into the fabric,

or as a patch or other method

which makes it a piece of the

uniform, and states that at

least the last name must be

visible on the outermost

article of clothing. By

ensuring that a last name is

displayed for the public to

see, it increases

transparency . Furthermore,

requiring that it be part of the

uniform and not just a badge

prevents it from being

removed at will, and increase

the likelihood that it will

always be visible to the

public.

2

Michael

“Besides the undue

subjectivity, the

wording “law

enforcement personnel licensed with the department

badge” is also too and must not be star

Amended the language to

read “A badge must have the

name of the agency as

R 28.4003

McDaniel, City

Shield Security

Services

vague and ambiguous shaped.” And eliminated “and

to be enforceable. The it must not resemble a law-

only place that

enforcement personnel

language has ever

badge that could deceive or

been used in Michigan confuse the public”. This

before was in the

earlier rules

promulgated by the

Department of Labor

change is an effort to ensure

that the goal of the rule – to

ensure badges display

transparent information about

and Economic Growth. who is providing services and

There is no definition that they are not in any way

for the phrase. Almost to be seen as law

every municipal law

enforcement

enforcement officers – is

captured without creating an

jurisdiction in Michigan overly-broad prohibition on

designed and

designs. The ban on a star

shape has been longstanding

practice, both when the rules

used to be in effect, and in

introduced their own

badges and patches,

with varying colors,

internal details, shapes practice when department

and accouterments.”

officials approved badges

without rules. The

department believes that

keeping in the ban on star-

shaped badges is an

important requirement to

lessen the chance that the

public may view security

business employees as law

enforcement officers.

MCL 24.242 and 24.245

Agency Report to JCAR -Page 4

3

Stephen

Alexander,

Alliance Risk understand this

Mitigation

Strategies

“This rule 5, daily

supervision. As I

Added “A qualifying officer

R 28.4005

may also be responsible for

the daily operation and

supervision of an agency’s

branch licenses.” to clarify

confusion over whether each

location must have a

statement, the

qualifying officer

needs to have it says

operational

supervision of the

agency and David so

to me what that says

is that someone who

has an office you

know in Lansing is in

the office and in

Detroit can't have the

same. Or would you

call it can't have the

same qualifying

separate individual as a

qualifying officer. With this

change, the department

hopes to convey that there

simply must be an individual

qualifying officer who

oversees daily operations

and supervision of the

agency as a whole, that they

must be involved with the

agency overall, and not

necessarily physically

officer because you

know I may have

stipulations for this is

what needs to

present at all locations at all

times.

happen that's how it

goes that doesn't to

me satisfy the daily

operational

supervision of the

agency component if

it does great if I'm

mistaken, great, but if

not I would very

much appreciate

some clarification on

that.”

4

Steve Amitay,

NASCO

"The requirements of Eliminated “an annual

section MCL 338.1060 multijurisdictional” and added

have nothing to do with “every 2 years upon renewal

conducting background of a license” following

checks and essentially “criminal background check

just say that a licensee of employees”. Corrected

R 28.4006(2)

(agency) shall follow

the Law and Agency

Rules." “For the

reference to section 17 rather

than 10 of the act. This

change was made to match

following substantive, language in the act, which is

statutory, operational, simply “criminal background

and other reasons,

NASCO and its

check”, to correct reference

to statutory authority in the

members in Michigan rule, and to ensure that

request that LARA Michigan’s background check

table Rule 6 subsection requirement is not overly

(2) for further analysis burdensome when compared

and consideration. In

to other jurisdictions. As the

the alternative, NASCO comment suggests, an

urges LARA to modify annual background check

the background check would impose a new

requirement to a more monetary burden that is more

rational and justifiable stringent than surrounding

interval such as every 2 states. Instead, the

MCL 24.242 and 24.245

Agency Report to JCAR -Page 5

or 3 years. NASCO

also requests that

LARA provide the

public with more

department has opted to

match the requirements of

fellow Great Lakes state,

Wisconsin, to make it a 2-

information and details year requirement at time of

on how the proposed ꢀrenewal of license. The

requirement would be department believes that this

satisfied by security

agencies.”

is a reasonable interval that

maintains the intended goal

of this rule: to protect the

public and ensure that

convicted felons are not

engaging in the providing of

security business services

throughout the time that they

are employed, and not just

upon hire. As to the

comment’s request for

information on how to

comply, the conducting of

criminal background checks

is outlined in statute, and this

rule does not alter that

process.

12. Date report completed:

5/7/2026

MCL 24.242 and 24.245