RFR-Page 2
R 340.1721e Individualized education program.
In subrule (7), the requirement of parental request in order for a representative of the resident
district to be invited to the individualized education program (IEP) team meeting is replaced with
a requirement that the operating district invite such a representative to the meeting. This removes
an undue burden from parents and aligns the rule with federal law in that:
1) Under 34 CFR 300.101(a) (2019), local education agencies are responsible for providing
a free and appropriate education (FAPE) to all students with disabilities.
2) As required by 34 CFR 300.115(a) (2019), public agencies are responsible for ensuring a
continuum of alternative placements for children with disabilities.
3) As required by 34 CFR 300.116(b) (2019), a public agency is responsible for ensuring
annual determination that a student's placement is based on the student’s IEP and is as close as
possible to the student’s home.
R 340.1724f Due process complaints; procedures.
Subrule (1) is deleted as obsolete and subrule (2) is deleted as duplicative.
Subrule (3) is revised as follows:
1) The incorrect reference to a complainant’s “initiation” of a due process hearing is deleted
and the 2 requirements for requesting a hearing are clearly stated.
2) The means of delivery are expanded to include all methods of electronic submission, thus
easing the burden on complainants and aligning with standard practice.
3) Subdivision (c) is deleted to align with 34 CFR 300.508(d)(2) (2019), which imposes the
duty to determine the sufficiency of a due process complaint on the administrative law judge. The
Department of Education’s Office of Special Education has no authority to determine such
sufficiency.
4) Subdivision (d) is deleted because the means of delivery of a due process complaint to
the will be stated elsewhere in the rule and requiring a statement of delivery is at odds with 34
CFR 300.508 (2019), which requires no such statement.
5) Subrule (4) is deleted as duplicative and unnecessary because its subject matter is
adequately covered in 34 CFR 300.508 (2019). The ALJ determines whether a due process
complaint meets the requirements of the rules and 34 CFR 300.508 (2019) and therefore also
determines, in conformance with federal regulations, when timelines begin.
6) Subrule (6) is revised to reflect the fact that, under 34 CFR 300.508(d) (2019), it is the
administrative law judge, not the Michigan Department of Education, who has the authority to
determine whether a due process complaint is sufficient. The obsolete reference to “R 340.1833 to
R 340.1885,” which were rescinded in 2015 and became Part 18 of MOAHR rules in 2015, is
deleted.
R 340.1724h Administrative law judge training.
There are several minor changes.
R 340.1725e Hearing officer or state reviewing official; duties and authority.
Subrule 4 is added for clarity and alignment with legal requirements and current practice.
R 340.1836 Objections to plan; procedures.
There are several minor changes.
R 340.1851 Filing a state complaint.
The allowable means of delivery of a state complaint are expanded to include all methods of
electronic submission, and the language is amended to align with the description of the means of
delivery in R 340.1724f(1)(a).
MCL 24.239